European innovation scoreboard 2008 - Comparative analysis of innovation performance

8/14/2019 European innovation scoreboard 2008 - Comparative analysis of innovation performance

1/64

European innovationscoreboard 2008

Comparative analysisofinnovationperformance

European CommissionEnterprise and Industry

PRO INNO Europe paper N10


2/64


3/64

European innovation scoreboaComparative analysis ofinno

performance

J A N U A R Y 2 0 0 9


4/64

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers

to your questions about the European Union

Freephone number (*):

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed.

The innovation policy initiative PRO INNO Europe combines analysis and benchmarking o na

policy perormance with support or cooperation o national and regional innovation programm

innovation agencies and other innovation stakeholders to implement joint actions. The initiative

mainEuropean reerence or innovation policy analysis and development throughout Europe and bri

innovation policy makers and stakeholders rom 33 countries.

Additional inormation on PRO INNO Europe is available on the Internet (www.proinno-europe.e

The EIS report and its Annexes, accompanying thematic papers and the indicators database areat http://www.proinno-europe.eu/metrics

Disclaimer:

The views expressed in this report, as well as the inormation included in it, do not necessarily re

o the European Commission and in no way commit the institution.

This report has been prepared by the Maastricht Economic and social Research and training cen

and Technology (UNU-MERIT).

Cover picture: Colored pencils Sorin Popa #9400391 Fotolia


5/64

2008 EUROPEAN INNOVATION SCOR

. Executive summary ..............................................................................................................................

. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................

3. European Innovation Scoreboard: Findings ....... ........ ....... ........ ....... ....... ........ ....... ...

3.. Innovation performance ..........................................................................................................

3.. Development in innovation performance ...................................................................

3.3. Innovation dimensions ..............................................................................................................

3.. EU performance .......................................................................................................................

. EU innovation gap with the US and Japan.............................................................................

5. Thematic reports ...................................................................................................................................

5.. Methodology report ..................................................................................................................

5.. Neglected innovators ................................................................................................................

5.3. Global Innovation Scoreboard ..............................................................................................5.. Creativity and design..................................................................................................................

. Country profiles ......................................................................................................................................

. Forward look ............................................................................................................................................

. Technical Annex .....................................................................................................................................

.. Calculating composite indexes ............................................................................................

.. Calculating growth rates ..........................................................................................................

. Annexes ......................................................................................................................................................


6/64


7/64

AcknowledgementThe report has beneted rom the work on calculating composite indicator growth rates b

(Institute or the Protection and Security o the Citizen) o the European Commission, rom

Global Innovation Scoreboard by the Italian National Research Council (CNR), and by the

private co-publications by the Centre or Science and Technology Studies (CWTS).


8/64

This is the eighth edition of theEuropean Innovation Scoreboard

(EIS), which provides a comparativeassessment of the innovationperformance of EU Member States,under the EU Lisbon Strategy. Themethodology for the EIS isrevised compared to that of witha stronger focus on services, non-technological aspects, and outputs ofinnovation (Section 5.). The analysis

of trends over time is now based onchanges in the absolute values ofthe indicators over a five year period,rather than the previous approach ofmeasuring trends relative to the EUaverage.

Executi.Summ

F I N L A N D , I R E L A N D , C Y P R U S A N D B U L G A R I A A R E T H E

B E S T I M P R O V I N G E U C O U N T R I E S W I T H I N T H E I R P E E R

G R O U P S ( S E C T I O N 3 )

The EIS 2008 includes innovation indicators and trend analyses or the

EU27 Member States as well as or Croatia, Turkey, Iceland, Norway and

Switzerland. Based on their innovation perormance across 29 indicators,

EU Member States all into the ollowing our country groups:

Sweden, Finland, Germany, Denmark and the UK are the

Innovation leaders, with innovation perormance well above that

o the EU average and all other countries. O these countries,

Germany is improving its perormance astest while Denmark is

stagnating

have been catching up, with th

and Romania have been impro

T H E E U I S I M P R O V I N G I T S

E S P E C I A L L Y I N H U M A N R E

A N D V E N T U R E C A P I T A L ( S

The revised methodology allow

innovation perormance at EU lev

overall progress, with particularly

graduates in science, engineering

at rst degree and graduate level

broadband and in venture capital i

not yet capture the impact o the

A N D D E C R E A S I N G T H E

U S A N D J A P A N ( S E C T I O N

The 2008 EIS includes a separat

compared with the United States an

indicators. This shows that there

in the EUs perormance relative t

relative to Japan. Nevertheless, thethe EU and these two other regions

down in the catching up with the

The EUs catching up is due to the

broadband and venture capital, bu


9/64

in public private linkages (as measured by joint scientic publications).

The remaining gap with both the US and Japan is concentrated in our

areas: international patenting (as measured under the patent cooperation

treaty), public private linkages and numbers o researchers (despite theimprovements in both o these areas), and business R&D expenditures

(where both EU and US values have stagnated, while Japans have

increased).

W H I L E H O L D I N G I T S G R O U N D A G A I N S T T H E

E M E R G I N G E C O N O M I E S ( S E C T I O N 5 . 3 )

The Global Innovation Scoreboard 2008 (GIS 2008) aims at comparing

the innovation perormance o the EU to that o the other major R&Dspenders in the world: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Hong

Kong, India, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, Republic o Korea, Mexico, Russian

Federation, Singapore, South Arica and the US. The analysis shows

that the EU27 block has a higher overall perormance than emerging

economies such as China, India and Brazil and that several EU countries

are among those that have most improved their relative ranking in the

period between 1995 and 2005.

N E W A N A L Y S I S C O N F I R M S T H E I M P O R T A N C E O F N O N -

R & D I N N O V A T I O N ( S E C T I O N 5 . , 5 . 4 )

R&D is not the only method o innovating. Other methods include

technology adoption, incremental changes, imitation, and combining

existing knowledge in new ways. An analysis o rms innovating without

perorming R&D based on the 2007 Innobarometer survey shows that while

these neglected innovators tend to have lower innovative capabilities

than R&D perorming rms, the major

activities and are just as likely to be as

neglected innovators are much less

their innovations.

An important part o non-R&D innov

a contribution to the 2009 European

a Design, Creativity and Innovation s

a range o novel indicators. The analy

countries with a good creative climate

and design activities and also strong

These ndings point to the need to co

activities as part o the broader approto the strong links between creativity

EU-US

-41 -40

-33-29 -28

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

EU Innovation gap tow

Performance for each reference year iswith a two-year lag (e.g. performance for 2006). The EU innovation gap is methe average performance of the EU ancomparable indicators. An EU innovator Japan is performing at a level of 140


10/64

It is considered that the described

innovation perormance. In addit

actors that infuence innovation

markets, social actors and the de

These actors and their relationsh

been explored in various EIS them

included in each o the dimensions

are available in Annex C. The ratio

and indicators is discussed in deta

methodology also includes a rev

average innovation perormance

o individual innovation perorma

only uses internationally comparab

and is thereore limited by the av

It is intended to maintain the sa

2010 editions o the European In

comparability between reports, w

potential o new statistical source

The EIS 2008 uses the most rece

internationally recognised source

It is important, as indicated in Tab

actual perormance in 2006 and 2does not capture the most recent c

the impact o policies introduced

time to impact on innovation per

The European Innovation Scoreboard(EIS) has been published annuallysince to track and benchmarkthe relative innovation performanceof EU Member States. For the EIS the methodology has been revised

and the number of dimensionsincreased to and grouped into 3main blocks covering enablers, firmactivities and outputs (Figure ).

The purpose of this revision isto have dimensions that bringtogether a set of related indicatorsto give a balanced assessment ofthe innovation performance in

that dimension. The blocks anddimensions have been designedto accommodate the diversity ofdifferent innovation processes andmodels that occur in different nationalcontexts.

Introdu.

o o

o

o

o

Figure 1: Dimensions of Innovation Performance captured

in the EIS


11/64

Table 1: Indicators for the EIS 2008-2010

EIS dimension / indicator

ENABLERSHuman resources

1.1.1 S&E and SSH graduates per 1000 population aged 20-29 (rst stage o tertiary education)

1.1.2 S&E and SSH doctorate graduates per 1000 population aged 25-34 (second stage o tertiary education)

1.1.3 Population with tertiary education per 100 population aged 25-64

1.1.4 Participation in lie-long learning per 100 population aged 25-64

1.1.5 Youth education attainment level

Finance and support

1.2.1 Public R&D expenditures (% o GDP)

1.2.2 Venture capital (% o GDP)

1.2.3 Private credit (relative to GDP)

1.2.4 Broadband access by rms (% o rms)

FIRM ACTIVITIES

Firm investments

2.1.1 Business R&D expenditures (% o GDP)

2.1.2 IT expenditures (% o GDP)

2.1.3 Non-R&D innovation expenditures (% o turnover)

Linkages & entrepreneurship

2.2.1 SMEs innovating in-house (% o SMEs)

2.2.2 Innovative SMEs collaborating with others (% o SMEs)

2.2.3 Firm renewal (SME entries plus exits) (% o SMEs)

2.2.4 Public-private co-publications per million population

Throughputs

2.3.1 EPO patents per million population

2.3.2 Community trademarks per million population

2.3.3 Community designs per million population

2.3.4 Technology Balance o Payments fows (% o GDP)

OUTPUTS

Innovators

3.1.1 SMEs introducing product or process innovations (% o SMEs)

3.1.2 SMEs introducing marketing or organisational innovations (% o SMEs)


12/64

a result which can both be explained

perormance and rom the revised se

innovation perormance7. A urther

rom the Innovation ollowers to the M

method o calculating countries ave

Based on a statistical cluster analysis o SII scores over a ve-year period and

using the same names or the our country groups as in the EIS 2007 the

countries can be divided into the ollowing groups:

Denmark, Finland, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK are the

Innovation leaders, with innovation perormance well above that o the

EU27 and all other countries.

Austria, Belgium, France, Ireland, Luxembourg and the Netherlands are

the Innovation ollowers, with innovation perormance below those o

the innovation leaders but above that o the EU27.Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Norway, Portugal,

Slovenia and Spain are the Moderate innovators with innovation

perormance below the EU27 where the rst 4 countries show a better

perormance than the last 6 countries.

Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania,

Slovakia and Turkey are the Catching-up countries Although their

Innovation perormance3.1.

The Summary Innovation Index

(SII) gives an at a glance overview

of aggregate national innovationperformance and is calculated as a

composite of the 9 EIS indicators

(see Section . for the methodology

for calculating composite indicators).

Figure shows the results for the

SII for European countries. Compared

to the EIS 7, non-European

countries are no longer directly

included in the EIS5. These countriesare included in the Global Innovation

Scoreboard (Section 5.) and for Japan

and the US a more detailed comparison

with the EU7 is discussed in Section .

Europea.InnovaScorebo

Fi

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0.700

TR BG LV ROHR LT PL SK HU MT IT GR PT ES NO C

Figure 2: Innovation perfo

Innovatio

Reference data for most of the underl

UK

SE

FI

AT

NL

LU

FR

DEDK

BE

0.450

0.500

0.550

0.600

0.650

0.700

0.750

rmance(SII2008)

Figure 3: Convergence i


13/64

Innovation dimensio3.3.

The perormance o the our coun

innovation dimensions is shown in Fig

in Section 6). The Innovation leade

have the smallest variance in their p

dimensions10. This suggests that hig

countries to perorm relatively well ov

For the Innovation ollowers perorman

weakness.

For Moderate innovators and Catch

perormance is less balanced across the

on average, show a relatively strong pe

and a relatively weak perormance i

countries show a relatively strong p

and a relatively weak perormance i

countries do worse in all dimension

groups, only in Economic eects their

o the Moderate innovators.

Development in innovation perormance3..

The development in innovation perormance has been calculated or each

country and or the EU27 as a block using data over a ve-year period 9. This

calculation is based on absolute changes in the indicators, as opposed to

previous EIS reports where trends were calculated relative to the EU average.

All countries, with the exception o Denmark show an absolute improvement

in the innovation perormance over the period. Romania and Bulgaria have

experienced the astest growth in perormance, albeit rom a low starting

point.

Within the our identied country groups growth perormance is very dierent

and Table 2 identies the growth leaders within each group. Within theInnovation leaders, Switzerland is the growth leader and all other countries

in this group show a rate o improvement that is below that o the EU27.

For the Innovation ollowers we observe that only Ireland and Austria have

managed to grow aster than the EU27. These countries are the growth leaders

within the Innovation ollowers. O the Moderate innovators seven countries

have grown aster than the EU27, but three countries have shown a slower

progress: Italy, Norway and Spain. The growths leaders here are Cyprus and

Portugal. O the Catching-up countries two countries have actually grown at

a slower pace than the EU27: Lithuania and Croatia. Bulgaria and Romania

are the growth leaders also showing the overall astest rate o improvement

in innovation perormance.

The average growth rates or the our country groups (Table 2) show that

there is between group convergence with the Moderate innovators and the

Catching-up countries growing at a aster rate than the Innovation leaders and

Innovation ollowers. This overall process o catching up, where countries with

below average perormance have aster growth rates than those with above

average perormance, can also be observed at the level o most individual

countries. Notable exceptions include Cyprus which combines a close to

average level o perormance with a high growth rate; Italy, Spain, Norway,

Lithuania and Croatia which combine below average levels o perormance with

below average growth rates; and Switzerland which is combining a high level

o innovation perormance and an above average rate o improvement.

Table 2: Innovation growth leaders

Group GrowthrateGrowthleaders

Moderategrowers Slow growers

Innovation

leaders1.6%

Switzerland

(CH)

Germany (DE),

Finland (FI)

Denmark (DK),

Sweden (SE),

United Kingdom

(UK)

France (FR),

Figure 4: Country groups: I

per dime

Figure 5: Country groups

per dime


14/64

growth are the Throughputs, Finance and support and Human resources

dimensions. The Moderate innovators and Catching-up countries show

improvements in Economic eects, Linkages & entrepreneurship and

Firm investments, while the Innovation leaders and Innovation ollowers

are on average stagnating or declining across these dimensions. All o

the groups show some decline in the Innovators dimension. Figure 5

conrms that the overall convergence process as shown in Figure 3 also

generally takes place within each innovation dimension.

Country rankings or each innovation dimension are shown in Figures 6

and 7. Within the dierent innovation dimensions, the Innovation leaders

on average take the leading spots, in particular in the Enablers and Firm

activities dimensions, ollowed by the Innovation ollowers (Figure 6).Growth perormance is dominated by the Moderate innovators and

Catching-up countries in all dimensions (Figure 7). Figures 6 and 7

combined lead to a number o interesting observations which will be

discussed next.

I N N O V A T I O N L E A D E R S ( D E N M A R K , F I N L A N D ,

G E R M A N Y, S W E D E N , S W I T Z E R L A N D , U K )

All Innovation leaders perorm well in Human resources. One exception

is Germany, which, however, shows a better growth perormance than

the rest o this group. The low growth o the other countries may be due

to their high perormance level which means that there is less room or

rapid improvements. Within Finance and support, the UK is the only

Innovation leader showing a strong growth, in particular due to very

rapid growth in Venture capital and Broadband access. In this dimension,

Germany is showing a relatively weaker perormance combined with

low growth. All Innovation leaders combine a high perormance level in

Firm investments with either moderate rates o improvement (Finland,

Germany, Switzerland) or moderate declines (Denmark, Sweden, UK).

In Linkages & entrepreneurship all Innovation leaders show a strong

perormance, but only Finland, Germany and Switzerland have managed

to improve their perormance. Switzerland is the best perormer in

Throughputs and it also has the highest growth rate, closely ollowed

by Finland and Sweden. Within the Innovators dimension, perormance is

most unequal, with Germany and Switzerland perorming very strongly,

Denmark, Finland and Sweden perorming moderately and the UKperorming relatively weak. Only Finland has managed to improve its

perormance in this dimension. Germany and Sweden are leading in

Economic eects and are the only Innovation leaders who managed to

improve their perormance in this dimension. The UK shows a relatively

weaker perormance here with both the lowest perormance level o the

Innovation leaders and the sharpest decline

decline in perormance on Linkag

ollowers do relatively well in Thr

which is also showing an above E

other Innovation ollowers have ex

average. All Innovation ollowers p

Innovators dimension except the N

ollower which has managed to im

in Economic eects is quite simila

perormance, and Austria showing

M O D E R A T E I N N O V A TO R S (

E S T O N I A , G R E E C E , I C E L A N

P O R T U G A L , S L O V E N I A , S P

In Human resources Estonia, Norwa

perormance, and, except or Gree

innovators show an above EU rate

Italy and Portugal have managed to

and support it is Iceland which sh

all countries and the astest rate

managed to combine above aver

rates o improvement. In Firm inv

perorm above EU average and ve

their perormance. In particular, E

rate o improvement o any count

in Business R&D expenditures and


perorming above average, and o

rate o improvement o any coun

a decline in their perormance in

Moderate innovators perorm belo

have managed to improve their pe

dimension, while the growth per

albeit positive, is among the weak

dimension where the Moderate in

Cyprus, Greece and Portugal amo

However, in terms o growth, only

to improve their perormance in

perorms above average in Econoinnovators perorm below average

Greece is highest o all countries,

have grown aster than the EU27.

C A T C H I N G - U P C O U N T R I E S

H U N G A R Y L A T V I A L I T H U


15/64

dimension due to declining Business R&D expenditures. In Linkages &

entrepreneurship no Catching-up country is perorming above the EU27

average but the majority countries have grown aster than the EU27

average with only Latvia and Lithuania experiencing a decline in their

perormance. Throughputs is the other dimension where all Catching-

up countries perorm below average but are also showing the strongest

rates o improvement. Bulgaria, Latvia, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia

and Turkey are the astest growing o all countries in this dimension.

Perormance in Innovators shows that Croatia and Turkey are perorming

above the EU27 average12, but also t

have the lowest levels o perormance

have managed to improve their per

which is having one o the astest ra

only Catching-up country perormin

eects, but also Hungary and Slovak

Growth perormance is more diverse

countries, and at the same time, Hun

the overall astest growing countries.

However, it should be noted that data availability

limited.


16/64

Finance and support

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.600.80

1.00

RO PL SK HUGR HR BG CZ TR LV LT IT MT PT AT DE SI EE IE BE CY NO LU EU FR ES NL CH

Firm investments

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

TR GR ES LT BG HR LV NO IE PT IT MT RO HU PL SI SK NL LU FR BE EU CY CZ IS DK DE EE


0.000.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

BG MT LV P L TR SK IT ES RO HR PT HU LT NO LU CZ SI EU FR GR IE NL EE DE CH FI SE IS

Throughputs

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

TR RO LT HR BG LV GR SK PL EE HU CZ PT SI NO CY ES IS FR IT MT UK B E EU NL FI SE DE

Innovators

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

Human resources

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

TR MT RO IT HU GRHR PT BG ES SK CZ DE CY LU AT IS LV EU EE BE PL NL SI LT FR NO DK

Figure 6: Innovation performance per dimension


17/64

Human resources

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

GR ES HU BE UK LU TR FI M T FR SE BG CH DK LT SI AT EU EE NL SK DE PL CZ NO RO IS HR IE

Finance and support

0.0

4.0

8.0

12.0

16.0

PL HR AT FI HU DK IT DE NL CH FR NO MT SE TR EU SK PT EE ES LT CZ CY SI BE IE BG GR IS

Firm investments

-12.0

-6.0

0.0

6.0

12.0

18.0

GR SK BE NO DK SE HR IE EU CZ IS LU NL UK FR IT CH DE LT FI RO SI PL CY HU AT MT ES PT


-10.0

-5.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

LV LU LT ES SE NO DK IE UK IS NL EU IT TR FR CH BE CZ MT SI DE PT EE AT SK RO HU FI HR

Throughputs

-6.0

0.0

6.0

12.0

18.0

24.0

HR NL UK ES EE LT IT DK DE AT IE BE FR EU SE P T HU SI FI GR NO CY IS CH LU TR CZ SK P L

Innovators

3 0

0.0

3.0

6.0

Figure 7: Growth performance per dimension


18/64

EU7 perormance3.4.

The revised methodology used

and absolute growth rates to be

o the EU27 growth rate in innova

annual growth rate o 2.3% over a

particularly due to Human resourc

and Throughputs (4.0%) where the

to 2004 (Figure 8). In Linkages & en

eects (1.1%) improvement has

(-0.9%) and Innovators (-1.3%) per

Within the individual indicators, thin Youth education, Public R&D

expenditures, Knowledge-intensiv

and high-tech manuacturing ex

exports and Sales o new-to-mar

showing relative weaknesses in S&E

learning, Innovative SMEs collabor

o Payments fows and Resource e

The EU27 is showing a strong grparticular in S&E and SSH gradua

Venture capital, Private credit and

activities is strongest in Throug

Designs and Technology Balanc

growth is weakest in Outputs, exc

Perormance is declining or 7 in

innovation expenditures and Firm

Figure 8: EU drivers of growth

0.000

0.200

0.400

0.600Human resources

Finance and

support

Firm investments

Linkages &

entrepreneurshipThroughputs

Innovators

Economic effects

"2004"

"2008"

3 In previous EIS reports it was not possible to

calculations were all made relative to the EU

A relative strength means that the performan

average performance of the EU on all indica


19/64

Figure 9: EU27 Innovation performance and growth per indicato

The shaded area gives the average performance for all indicators.The indicators reflecting Enablers are highlighted in yellow,those reflecting Firm activities in green and those reflectingOutputs in blue.

The shaded area gives the avindicators. Average annual ga five-year period.The indicators reflecting Enathose reflecting Firm activitiOutputs in blue.

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80

S&E/SSH graduates

S&E/SSH docto rate

degr.

Tertiary educatio n

Life-long learning

Youth education

Public R&D

Venture capital

Private credit

Bro adband access

Business R&D

IT expenditures

Non-R&D innovation

SM Es innov. in-house

SM Es collaborating

Firm renewal

Public-private co-publ.

EPO patents

Co mmunity trademarks

Community designs

TBP f lows

Pro duct/process inn.

Organisational/marketing

inn.

Reso urce efficieny inn.

M ed/hi-tech manuf empl.

KIS employment

M ed/hi-tech manuf exp.

KIS exports

New-to-market products

New-to-firm products

-5.0% 0.0%


20/64

The US and Japan are not included in the

main EIS analysis as for both countries data

are missing for too many indicators. For

the innovation gap comparison, we use a

different set of 7 indicators of which

indicators are identical to those of the

EIS (Table ). The EIS indicators on S&E and

SSH graduates have been replaced with

the (EIS 7) indicator on S&E graduates.

Broadband access by firms is replaced by

the share of broadband subscribers and

the share of researchers5 has been added

as an additional indicator for Enablers.

For Firm activities, an additional indicator isPCT patents7 (to compensate for a possible

home advantage in only using European

Patent Offi ce registrations) and trademarks

is a weighted average of the EIS indicator

on Community trademarks and an indicator

from the World Development Indicators

measuring national trademark applications

by residents (also to compensate for a

possible home advantage). For the US, datafor knowledge-intensive services exports

are not available. For Japan, data for venture

capital are not available and data for the

employment shares in medium-high and

high-tech manufacturing and knowledge-

intensive services are for .

EU. innogap wit

US and

Table 3: EU27-US-Japan Indicators

Data source

ENABLERS

* S&E graduates per 1000 population aged 20-29 Eurostat

Population with tertiary education per 100 population aged 25-64 Eurostat

* Researchers per 1000 population OECD (MSTI database)

Public R&D expenditures (% o GDP) Eurostat

Venture capital (% o GDP) EVCA / Eurostat

* Broadband subscribers per 1000 population World Development Indicators ( Wor


21/64

* Trademarks per million population, average o:

Community trademarks per million population

Trademark applications (residents) per million population

OHIM / Eurostat

World Development Indicators ( WorldB

Technology Balance o Payments fows (% o GDP) World Develop ment Indicators ( WorldB

OUTPUTS

Employment in medium-high & high-tech manuacturing (% o

workorce)Eurostat / OECD

Employment in knowledge-intensive services (% o workorce) Eurostat / OECD

Medium and high-tech manuacturing exports (% o total exports) Eurostat

Knowledge-intensive services exports (% o total services exports) Eurostat

The indicators highlighted with an * are not identical to but proxies or the EIS indicators.

Figure 10 shows that the innovation perormance o the US and Japan is

well above that o the EU27. The EU-US gap has dropped signicantly18, in

particular between 2005 and 2006 although the relative progress o the

EU appears to have slowed down sin

increased but has been declining at a

Performance for each reference year is measured using, on average, data with a two-year lag (e.g. perf

2008 is measured using data for 2006). The EU innovation gap is measured as the distance between th

performance of the EU and those of the US and Japan on 16 indicators. An EU innovation gap of e.g. -4

US or Japan is performing at a level of 140, or 40 above that of the EU.

Figure 10: EU Innovation GAP towards US and Japan

Due to a different approach and a slightly different set of indicators, the results reported here

are different from those reported in the EIS report. The EIS report concluded that

the EU-US gap had dropped significantly between 3 and but showed a very modest

reduction only in and the EU-Japan gap had dropped significantly between and

but only modestly in .


22/64

The US is perorming better than the EU27 in 12 indicators, only in S&E

graduates, Trademarks, Technology Balance o Payments fows and

Medium-high and high-tech manuacturing employment is the EU27

perorming better (Figure 11). Overall there is a clear perormance gap in

avour o the US, with the US showing a better perormance in Enablers,

Firm activities and Outputs. But the US innovation lead is declining, as

its innovation perormance has grown at an annual rate o 0.95% while

the EU27 is growing at an annual rate o 2.65%19. It is striking that the

EU outperorms the US in growth perormance in all o the indicators

except Business R&D, EPO patents

the perormance gap with the U

Public R&D, Venture capital, Broa

publications, Knowledge-intensiv

high and high-tech manuacturin

lead in S&E graduates, Trademar

fows and Medium-high and high

The US is slightly improving its le

PCT patents.

US data for KIS exports are not available.

The indicators reflecting Enablers are highlighted in yellow, those

reflecting Firm activities in green and those reflecting Outputs in blue.

Average annual growth rates as calc

The indicators reflecting Enablers ar

reflecting Firm activities in green an

Figure 11: EU-US Comparison

US performance rel. to EU

0 50 100 150 200 2 50

AVERAGE

ENABLERS

S&E graduates

Tertiary education

Researchers

Public R&D expenditures

Venture capital

Broadband subscribers

FIRM ACTIVITIES

Business R&D expenditures

IT expenditures

Public-private co-publications

EPO patents

Trademarks

TBP flo ws

PCT patents

OUTPUTS

Med/high-tech manuf. empl.

KIS employment

Med/high-tech manuf. exports

KIS exports

Innovation gr

-4% -2% 0% 2%

The growth rate for the EU is different from that reported in Section 3 (.3%) at the set of

indicators used for the EU-US and EU-Japan comparison is different from that used in the EIS.


23/64

JP data for Venture capital are not available.

The indicators reflecting Enablers are highlighted in yellow, those

reflecting Firm activities in green and those reflecting Outputs in

blue.

Average annual growth rates as calculat

The indicators reflecting Enablers are hig

Firm activities in green and those reflect

Figure 12: EU-Japan Comparison

Japan's performance rel. to EU

0 50 100 150 200 2 50

AVERAGE

ENABLERS

S&E graduates

Tertiary education

Researchers

Public R&D expenditures

Venture capital

Broadband subscribers

FIRM ACTIVITIES

Business R&D expenditures

IT expenditures

Public-private co-publications

EPO patents

Trademarks

TBP flows

PCT patents

OUTPUTS

M ed/high-tech manuf. empl.

KIS employment

M ed/high-tech manuf. exports

KIS export s

Innovation gr

-4% -2% 0% 2% 4%

Japan is perorming better than the EU27 in 12 indicators, only in

Trademarks, Technology Balance o Payments fows, Knowledge-intensive

services employment and Knowledge-intensive services exports is the

EU27 perorming better (Figure 12). Overall there is a clear perormance

gap in avour o Japan, with Japan showing a better perormance in

Enablers, Firm activities and Outputs. The Japanese innovation lead is

however decreasing, as its innovation perormance has grown at 1.65%

while the EU27 is growing at an annual rate o 2.65%. The EU27 is closing

the perormance gap with Japan in S

Researchers, Public R&D, Broadband

publications and Medium-high and hig

EU27 is increasing its lead in Trademark

fows and Knowledge-intensive service

its lead in Business R&D, EPO patents, P

high-tech manuacturing employme

the gap in Knowledge-intensive servi


24/64

Themat5.report

Over the years the EIS has received a number o criticisms such as the

lack o an underlying rationale or the choice o innovation dimensions

and indicators; or using composite indicators and ranking tables;

or being biased to measuring innovation in high-tech industries; or

the act that several o its indicators are highly correlated; and or the

underlying assumption that a higher score on an indicator implies a

better innovation perormance (a review o published criticisms o the

EIS is provided in the 2008 methodology report).

The revised methodology has not only tried to address the above

challenges and criticisms, but the revision process has also actively

involved the participation o many stakeholders, rom academic

researchers to policy makers and Member States representatives (c.

Figure 13) Stakeholders were invited to participate in the June 16 EIS

Methodology report5.1. 20

The EIS MethodologyReport explains in detail the new

methodology that has been used forthe EIS report and also intendedfor the and reports. Therevision of the EIS methodologywas a direct result of the challengesdiscussed in the EIS report to:) measure new forms of innovation;) assess overall innovationperformance;

3) improve comparability at national,regional and international levels; and) measure progress and changesover time.

indicators and more discussions

resulted in the nal list o indicato

During the revision process three p

possibilities or improvement: 1)

indicators is limited as compared

unnecessary manipulations; 2) Tra

easily recalculated, based on a ca

methodology or calculating the co

a reasonable level o continuity wi

the results between the new EIS 20

o the EIS 2009 and EIS 2010 and t

The revised methodology is pre

Figure 13: EIS Revision p

Input paper

Workshop

Experts

Output paper

Revision

Revision

Member States

New Methodology(Methodology Repor


25/64

are regularly updated, and is thereore limited by the availability and

timeliness o such data. It is intended to maintain the same methodology

or the 2009 and 2010 editions o the European Innovation Scoreboard

to allow direct comparability between reports, while at the same time

exploring the potential o new statistical sources through the EIS

thematic reports.

Neglected innovators5.. 22

R&D is not the only method o innovating. Other methods include

technology adoption, incremental changes, imitation, and combining

existing knowledge in new ways. With the possible exception o

technology adoption, all o these methods require creative eort on

the part o the rms employees and consequently will develop the rms

in-house innovative capabilities. These capabilities are likely to lead to

productivity improvements, improved competitiveness, and to new or

improved products and processes that could have wider impacts on the

economy. For these reasons, the activities o rms that innovate without

perorming R&D are o interest to policy.

The report on Neglected indicators uses a new data set to exploreinnovation activities that are not based on R&D. These activities can

be used by both innovative rms that perorm R&D and by innovative

rms that do not per orm R&D. The data are rom the Innobarometer (IB)

2007 survey, which was partly designed to delve urther into innovative

activities that are not based on R&D to look more closely at how

neglected innovators innovate.

The IB survey is based on a quota survey or all 27 EU member states.

Results are available or 4,395 innovative rms, covering innovative

activities over 2005 and 2006. O these, 52.5% innovate without

perorming R&D (non-R&D innovators), 40.0% perorm R&D in-house,

and 7.5% contract out R&D to other rms or organizations. The share o

non-R&D innovators is similar to the 50% share observed or the third

European Community Innovation Survey (CIS) or the three year period

o 1998 to 2000.

Compared to rms that perorm R&D in-house, a higher percentage

o non-R&D innovators have less than 50 employees, are active in low

technology service sectors, and are located in European countries with

below average innovative perormance. However, non-R&D innovators

are ound in all size categories, countries, and sectors. For example, 10% o

non-R&D innovators have over 250 employees and one-third are located

in the leading innovative countries o Germany and Scandinavia

R&D. Non-R&D innovators spend less o

This holds ater controlling or the e

For product and process innovations

dierence between non-R&D innovat

in the percentage o rms that repor

or no modication in-house or wh

processes obtained rom external so

one-third o non-R&D innovators and

two methods.

The main dierence is in the perc

develop products, processes, or org

in collaboration with other external s

perorm R&D in-house collaborate o

compared to non-R&D innovators

innovations). However, non-R&D

dependent than R&D perorming rm

rom other rms, particularly through

products and processes.

An important method o innovatingequally by non-R&D and R&D per

customize or modiy products and pro

The inormation sources used by both

activity are similar, except that a high

draw on the use o external experts s

In general, non-R&D innovators have

abilities to develop more novel innova

with ewer non-R&D innovators capa

house and a smaller percent reportin

to innovation. However, a striking re

minor: 71% o non-R&D innovators r

or process innovations in-house (com

54% o sta time on innovation is o

innovations in-house (compared to 6

report training or skills upgrading o

R&D perormers).

The results show that a majority o non

innovative activities. Many o these

benet rom policy support or the

policy appears to ail this group o n

non-R&D innovators report using at l


26/64

Global Innovation Scoreboard5.3. 23

The new Global Innovation Scoreboard 2008 (GIS 2008) aims at comparing

the innovation perormance o the EU27 to that o the other major R&D

spenders in the world: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Hong

Kong, India, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, Republic o Korea, Mexico, Russian

Federation, Singapore, South Arica and the United States. The GIS 2008

methodology includes 9 indicators o innovation and technological

capabilities (see Table 4). They are grouped in three main dimensions

(pillars): Firm Activities and Outputs, Human Resources and Inrastructures

and Absorptive Capacity.

Table 4: GIS pillars and indicators

Pillar Indicator

Firm Activities and

Outputs

Triadic patents per population (3 years

average)

Business R&D (BERD) as a % o GDP

Human Resources

S&T tertiary enrolment ratioLabour orce with tertiary education(% total labour orce)

R&D personnel per populationScientic articles per population

Inrastructures and

Absorptive Capacity

ICT expenditures per capitaBroadband penetration per populationPublic R&D (HERD + GERD) as a % o GDP

For each pillar a Dimension Compo

a simple average o the indicators. T

Composite Innovation Indexes. Sin

emphasize the innovative activit

sector, the rst pillar - Firm Activit

cent o the total GIS score, while the

and Inrastructures and Absorptiv

each24. As in the EIS all variables a

and countries are ranked on an ord

relatively to two dierent years

comparison o national innovative

a more limited set o indicators is u

as a dierent time period. Thereo

main EIS, particularly or countries t

the period 1995 to 2002 and or co

the indicators used in the GIS.

In Table 5 we summarize the Globa

by showing their ranks or the GIS

to years 1995 and 2005. Concernin

perorm dierently across the thr

and Germany show excellent relaactivities. Finland, Israel and Cana

Resources. Finally, Sweden and De

their Inrastructures and Absorpti

GIS ranks to 1995 as a whole, it is

perormance and technological ca

structuralin nature.3The Global Innovation Scoreboard has been prepared by the Italian National Research Council

(CNR).

Accordingly, the GIS scores are calculates as

.3).

5 Given the inherent structural characteristic o

time span of years has been chosen in ord

time. For some countries and the EU block

lack of data availability. Much of the data is n

5.


27/64

Table 5: GIS: ranks and ranks variations26 for each pillar, 1995 and 2005

GIS Firm activities Human Resources

Countryrank5

rankvariation

rank5

rankvariation

rank5

rankvariation

Sweden 1 0 4 -3 4 -2

Switzerland 2 0 2 0 5 -2

Finland 3 3 5 -1 1 3

Israel 4 1 3 4 3 -2

Japan 5 -1 1 2 13 -3

United States 6 -3 8 -2 6 -1

Denmark 7 3 10 3 8 1

Korea, Rep. 8 4 7 5 7 10

Canada 9 0 18 0 2 5

Germany 10 -2 6 -1 17 -1

Netherlands 11 -4 9 1 20 -1

Singapore 12 7 15 6 10 11

France 13 -2 13 -4 18 -7

Austria 14 4 12 4 25 1

Norway 15 2 20 -3 14 4

United Kingdom 16 -2 17 -3 12 2Belgium 17 -4 14 -3 23 -11

Australia 18 -3 19 0 9 n/a

Luxembourg 19 n/a 11 -3 21 19

EU-27 20 -3 16 -1 19 -4

Hong Kong 21 n/a 32 2 n/a n/a

New Zealand 22 0 23 6 26 -18

Ireland 23 1 21 -1 16 7

Spain 24 6 28 0 15 10Slovenia 25 -2 22 0 28 -4

Italy 26 2 26 -3 32 -4

Czech Republic 27 4 24 0 29 0

Estonia 28 -2 33 4 27 0

Russian Fed. 29 -2 27 -1 11 2

Portugal 30 7 35 3 31 8

Greece 31 4 43 -8 24 8

Lithuania 32 -3 41 5 30 -8

Hungary 33 1 31 -1 38 -4

China 34 8 25 7 48 -3

Croatia 35 n/a n/a n/a 36 -5

Cyprus 36 5 42 2 37 0

Slovak Republic 37 -11 39 -12 34 -14


28/64

Countries rank in act airly stably over ten years27. The astest improving

countries are China, which climbs eight positions (+8), Portugal (+7),

Singapore (+7), Spain (+6)28, Cyprus (+5), Turkey (+5) and Brazil (+5).

Singapore bases its increase mainly on Firm Activities and Human

Resources, and Spain and Portugal particularly on Human Resources. China

shows its best perormance relative to Firm Activities and Inrastructures

and Absorptive Capacity, while it looses 3 positions on Human Resources.

Brazil shows strong increases in Firm activities and Inrastructures and

Absorptive Capacity and a moderate increase in Human Resources. As ar

as the other BRIC countries are concerned, India improves one position

and the Russian Federation looses 2 positions.

The EU27 reaches the twentieth position, showing a good perormance

particularly on Firm Activities. The balanced innovation perormance o

the EU27 emerges rom Figure 14 where it is notable how the three pillars

have the same relative importance. The United States show a composition

similar to that o the EU27, while Japans innovation perormance is more

based on business activities.

The 1995-2005 rank variations relative to the pillar Firm Activities and

Outputs refect the major dynamism o three BRIC countries, namely Brazil,

China and India, concerning their business innovative perormances asmeasured by patenting activity and business R&D expenditures. Among

the top perormers, some have been loosing ground relative to the

other countries, i.e. United States

Germany and France. On the oth

been increasing their position: Ja

1995-2005 rank variations relative

that Luxembourg, Greece, Korea

Spain are the best gainers. China

position while Brazil and Russian

worth noting that among countrie

economies, e.g. the United State

France, Belgium and Germany. The

the pillar Inrastructures and Abso

dynamic countries include three B

in addition to Czech Republic, Den

Switzerland and United Kingdom.

Finally, Figure 14 reveals the relativ

the GIS 2005. The relative contribu

the business sector - Firm Activities

or the rst 15 countries with th

Australia. Also China shows a relat

taking place in the business secto

Resources play an important role Russian Federation and India, while

contributions rom Inrastructure a

GIS rank correlation relative to 5 and 5 is equal to ., while it is around . for the

three pillars.

Spains growth performance on Human Resources (HR) is different from that in the EIS where

Spain only shows a very modest improvement (cf. Figure and Spains country profile in

Section ). For this there are two explanations. First, the set of indicators used in the GIS is

different from that in the EIS (cf. Table ) where only one indicator Labour force with tertiary

education is used in both. Second, where the GIS studies improvements between 5 and5, the EIS looks at more recent improvements between 3 and . Evidence for three

of the EIS HR indicators shows that Spain was enjoying higher growth rates between 5 and

5 for Population with Tertiary education (5.5% average annual growth vs. 3.% for 3-

), Participation in life-long learning (.% vs. -.5%) and Youth education attainment level

(.% vs. -.%). Also for S&E graduates average annual growth between 5 and 5 was

stronger than that between and (.% vs. -3.%).


29/64

Figure 14: Global Innovation Performance 2005

Romania

Latvia

India

Argentina

South Africa

MexicoBrazil

Poland

Turkey

Malta

Bulgaria

Slovak Rep.

Cyprus

Croatia

China

Hungary

Lithuania

Greece

Portugal

Russian Fed.

Estonia

Czech Rep.

Italy

Slovenia

SpainIreland

New Zealand

Hong Kong

EU27

Luxembourg

Australia

Belgium

United Kingdom

Norway

AustriaFrance

Singapore

Netherlands

Germany

Canada

Korea, Rep.

Denmark

United States

Japan

IsraelFinland

Switzerland

Sweden


30/64

Creativity and design5.4.

Creativity and design are important eatures o a well-developed

knowledge economy spurring innovation and having a avourable impact

on peoples well-being and business perormance. The importance o

creativity or innovation is refected by the act that 2009 will be the

European Year o Creativity and Innovation: The aim is to exploit and

promote creative and innovative approaches and initiatives in dierent

domains o human activity and at all levels. While education and culture

will be at the centre o the Year, it eeds into many other policy areas, such

as enterprise, inormation society, employment or regional policy29.

In preparation o a Commission Sta Working Document to be published

in 2009, the European Innovation Scoreboard project was asked to

prepare a statistical document aimed at measuring Member States

perormance in design and creativity based on currently available

quantitative indicators, to classiy these indicators into meaningul blocks

capturing relevant but distinct aspects o design and creativity, to analyse

the links between design and creativity and innovation perormance, and

to suggest improvements or measuring creativity and design.

Following the EIS, this report adopts a scoreboard approach using a largeset o indicators to capture the dierent dimensions. It should be stressed

that there is a general lack o quantitative indicators which directly measure

creativity and design. Creativity is dened as the generation o new ideas,

but the number o ideas is an unobserved statistical phenomenon. For

design activities there is more statistical evidence, but the number o

indicators directly measuring design activities is limited. We thereore

have to rely on so-called proxy indicators, which only indirectly measure

creativity and design, thereby crea

approach where countries perorm

based on the respective bias in thes

true perormance. The quality o

people to express themselves (arti

towards dierent countries and cult

more avourable Creative climate w

and more creativity is assumed to

where R&D and design not only

shape them into commercially att

thus increasing innovation.

The statistical results in this pape

climate has a positive eect on a co

or dierences in income levels, th

countries are in a position to spen

education system. Countries wher

artistic and cultural activities also a

openness to other countries and c

o oreign students and employee

impact on creativity.

Higher levels o creativity result in

activities. Apparently more ideas cr

o potential research projects, tem

design activities. The statistical re

positive link between increased R

innovation perormance, althoug

range o other ramework conditio

http://create.europa.eu/


31/64

Country.profile

In this section, a more detailedcountry profile is shown,highlighting for each country itsrelative strengths and weaknessesin innovation performance andits main drivers of innovationgrowth. For each country detaileddata tables are available from theINNO Metrics website (http://

www.proinno-europe.eu/metrics)and detailed information onpolicy measures and governanceis available at the INNO Policy

TrendChart website (http://www.proinno-europe.eu/trendchart).

B E L G I U M

Human resources

Finance and support

ENABLERS

Firm investments


Throughputs

FIRM A CTIVITIES

Innovators

Economic effects

OUTPUTS

Summary Innovatio n Index (SII)


32/64

Bulgaria is one o the Catching-up countries with an innovation

perormance well below the EU27 average but the rate o improvement

is one o the highest o all countries and it is a growth leader within the

Catching-up countries. Relative strengths, compared to the countrys

average perormance, are in Human resources, Finance and support

and Economic eects and relative weaknesses are in Linkages &

entrepreneurship and Throughputs.

B U L G A R I A

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60

Human resources

Finance and support

ENABLERS

Firm investments


Throughputs

FIRM AC TIVITIES

Innovators

Economic effects

OUTPUTS

Summary Innov atio n Index (SII)

-4% 0% 4% 8% 12% 16% 20%

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70

Human resources

Finance and support

ENABLERS

Firm investments


Throughputs

FIRM ACT IVITIESInnovators

Economic effects

OUTPUTS

Summary Innovation Index (SII)

-4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10

Over the past 5 years, Throughp

been the main drivers o the impr

in particular as a result rom stro

Broadband access by rms (21.5%

Community designs (31.0%). Pero

grown, in particular due to a dec

and New-to-rm sales (-3.1%).

C Z E C H R E P U B L I C

The Czech Republic is among the group o Moderate innovators with

innovation perormance below the EU27 average but the rate o

improvement is above that o the EU27. Relative strengths, compared

to the countrys average perormance, are in Firm investments, Innovators

and Economic eects and relative weaknesses are in Throughputs,

Finance and support and Human resources

Over the past 5 years, Throughpu

support have been the main drive

perormance, in particular as a res

designs (26.0%), Technology Balan

SSH graduates (14.1%), Private cre

rms (40 1%) Perormance in Innov


33/64

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80

Human resources

Finance and support

ENABLERS

Firm investments


Throughputs

FIRM A CTIVITIES

Innovators

Economic effects

OUTPUTS


-6% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00

Human resources

Finance and support

ENABLERS

Firm investments


Throughputs

FIRM AC TIVITIES

Innovators

Economic effects

OUTPUTS


-2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8

D E N M A R K

For Denmark, one o the Innovation leaders, innovation perormance

is well above the EU27 average but the rate o improvement is not only

below that o the EU27 but virtually zero. Relative strengths, compared

to the countrys average perormance, are in Human resources, Finance

and support, Throughputs and Linkages & entrepreneurship and relative

weaknesses are in Firm investments, Innovators and Economic eects.

Over the past 5 years, Human resources, Finance and support and

Throughputs have been the main drivers o a stagnating innovation

perormance, in particular resulting

credit (7.5%) and Community tradem

investments, Linkages & entreprene

eects has worsened, in particular du

collaborating with others (-8.0%), SM

innovations (-5.7%), New-to-market s

(-8.5%).

G E R M A N Y

Germany is one o the Innovation leaders with innovation perormance

considerably above the EU27 average and the rate o improvement is

about the same as that o the EU27. Relative strengths, compared to the

countrys average perormance are in Innovators and Economic eects

Over the past 5 years, Human reso

Throughputs have been the main

innovation perormance, in particular

S&E and SSH graduates (12 1%) Lie-


34/64

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70

Human resources

Finance and support

ENABLERS

Firm investments


Throughputs

FIRM AC TIVITIES

Innovators

Economic effects

OUTPUTS


-4% 0% 4% 8% 12% 16%

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70

Human resources

Finance and support

ENABLERS

Firm investments


Throughputs

FIRM AC TIVITIES

Innovators

Economic effects

OUTPUTS


-4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10%

E S T O N I A

I R E L A N D

For Estonia, one o the Moderate innovators, innovation perormance

is just below the EU27 average but the rate o improvement is above

that o the EU27. Relative strengths, compared to the countrys average

perormance, are in Finance and support, Firm investments, Linkages

& entrepreneurship and Innovators and relative weaknesses are in

Throughputs.

Ireland is in the group o Innovation ollowers, with an innovation

perormance above the EU27 average. It is a growth leader within this

group o countries with a rate o improvement just above that o the EU27.

Relative strengths, compared to the countrys average perormance, are

in Human resources, Throughputs and Economic eects and relative

weaknesses are in Firm investments and Linkages & entrepreneurship.

Over the past 5 years, Finance and

been the main drivers o the impr

in particular as a result rom stro

Business R&D expenditures (20.0%

(29.3%) and Community trademar

has remained stable.

in particular as a result rom stron

graduates (12.8%), Private credit (1

(37.5%). Perormance in Firm inves

and Innovators has worsened, in pa

innovation expenditures (-5.7%),

others (-7.0%) and SMEs introduc

(-3 3%)


35/64

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80

Human resources

Finance and support

ENABLERS

Firm investments


Throughputs

FIRM A CTIVITIES

Innovators

Economic effects

OUTPUTS


-12% -8% -4% 0% 4% 8% 12% 16

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70

Human resources

Finance and support

ENABLERS

Firm investments


Throughputs

FIRM ACT IVITIES

Innovators

Economic effects

OUTPUTS


-4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 1

G R E E C E

For Greece, one o the Moderate innovators, innovation perormance is

below the EU27 average and the rate o improvement is above that o the

EU27. Relative strengths, compared to the countrys average perormance,

are in Linkages & entrepreneurship, Innovators and Economic eects and

relative weaknesses are in Throughputs and Firm investments.

Over the past 5 years, Finance and su

been the main drivers o the improve

in particular as a result rom stron

by rms (51.6%) and Newto-marke

Firm investments has worsened, du

expenditures (-4.5%) and Non-R&D in

S P A I N

For Spain, one o the Moderate innovators, innovation perormance

is below the EU27 average and the rate o improvement is just below


perormance, are in Finance and support and Economic eects and relative

weaknesses are in Firm investments and Linkages & entrepreneurship.

Over the past 5 years Finance and support and Firm investments have

in particular as a result rom strong

Broadband access by rms (15.3%) and

(13.4%). Perormance in Linkages & e

has worsened, in particular due to a d

(-6.0%). The growth in perormance in

below the EU average.


36/64

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70

Human resources

Finance and support

ENABLERS

Firm investments


Throughputs

FIRM A CTIVITIES

Innovators

Economic effects

OUTPUTS


-2% 0% 2% 4% 6%

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60

Human resources

Finance and support

ENABLERS

Firm investments


Throughputs

FIRM A CTIVITIESInnovators

Economic effects

OUTPUTS


-2% 0% 2% 4% 6%

F R A N C E

I T A L Y

France is in the Innovation ollowers group o countries with an innovation

perormance above the EU27 average but the rate o improvement is

below that o the EU27. Relative strengths, compared to the countrys

average perormance, are in the Enablers (Human resources, Finance

and support), and Outputs (Innovators and Economic eects) and

relative weaknesses are in Firm activities (Firm investments, Linkages &

entrepreneurship and Throughputs).

For Italy, one o the Moderate innovators, innovation perormance is

below the EU27 average and the rate o improvement is also below


perormance, are in Finance and support and Economic eects and

relative weaknesses are in Human resources, Firm investments and


Over the past 5 years, Human re

Throughputs have been the m

innovation perormance, in parti

and SSH doctorate graduates (5.1%

and Community designs (4.9%). Pe

improved, in particular due to a d

manuacturing exports (-0.7%).

the improvement in innovation per

strong growth in S&E and SSH grad

graduates (22.7%), Broadband acc

trademarks (4.7%). Perormance in

and perormance in Innovators an

particular due to a decrease in Ne


37/64

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80

Human resources

Finance and support

ENABLERS

Firm investments


Throughputs

FIRM A CTIVITIES

Innovators

Economic effects

OUTPUTS


-6% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 1

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60

Human resources

Finance and support

ENABLERS

Firm investments


Throughputs

FIRM AC TIVITIES

Innovators

Economic effectsOUTPUTS


-12% -8% -4% 0% 4% 8% 12% 16% 20

C Y P R U S

Cyprus is a growth leader among the group o Moderate innovator

countries, with an innovation perormance just below the EU27 average

and a rapid rate o improvement. Relative strengths, compared to the

countrys average perormance, are in Finance and support, Linkages &

entrepreneurship and Innovators and relative weaknesses are in Human

resources and Throughputs.

Over the past 5 years there has been strong growth in Finance and

support, Linkages & entrepreneurship, Human resources, Throughputs

and Economic eects have also been

in innovation perormance, in particu

in S&E and SSH doctorate graduates (1

(18.5%), Innovative SMEs collaborating

co-publications (11.0%), Community

designs (30.5%), New-to-market sale

(17.7%). Perormance in Innovators ha

L A T V I A

For Latvia, one o the Catching-up countries, innovation perormance

is well below the EU27 average but the rate o improvement is above


perormance are in Human resources and Finance and support and

improvement in innovation perorma

strong growth in S&E and SSH doctora

(23.4%), Business R&D expenditures

(29 4%) and Community designs (19


38/64

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60

Human resources

Finance and support

ENABLERS

Firm investments


Throughputs

FIRM A CTIVITIES

Innovators

Economic effects

OUTPUTS


-8% -4% 0% 4% 8%

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80

Human resources

Finance and support

ENABLERS

Firm investments


Throughputs

FIRM A CTIVITIES

InnovatorsEconomic effects

OUTPUTS


-8% -4% 0% 4% 8% 12%

L I T H U A N I A

L U X E M B O U R G

Lithuania is among the group o Catching-up countries, with an

innovation perormance well below the EU27 average. However, unlike

most other countries in this group its rate o improvement is below


perormance, are in Human resources, Finance and support and Linkages

& entrepreneurship and relative weaknesses are in Firm investments,

Throughputs and Innovators.

For Luxembourg, one o the Innovation ollowers, innovation perormance

is above the EU27 average but the rate o improvement is slightly

below that o the EU27. Relative strengths, compared to the countrys

average perormance, are in Throughputs and Innovators and relative

weaknesses are in Human resources Firm investments and Linkages &

Over the past 5 years, Finance a

Throughputs have been the m

innovation perormance, in partic

S&E and SSH graduates (10.8%), P

trademarks (19.4%). Perormance

Innovators has worsened, in parti

SMEs collaborating with others (-

or process innovations (-6.1%).

as a result rom strong growth in Pr

by rms (20.0%) and Community

investments, Linkages & entrepre

eects has worsened, in particula

co-publications (-14 3%) Employ


39/64

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60

Human resources

Finance and support

ENABLERS

Firm investments


Throughputs

FIRM A CTIVITIES

Innovators



-2% 0% 2% 4% 6%

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70

Human resources

Finance and support

ENABLERS

Firm investments


Throughputs

FIRM AC TIVITIES

Innovators

Economic effects

OUTPUTS


-4% 0% 4% 8% 12% 16% 20

H U N G A R Y

Hungary is in the group o Catching-up countries with innovation

perormance well below the EU27 average but a rate o improvement

above that o the EU27. Relative strengths, compared to the countrys

average perormance, are in Economic eects and relative weaknesses

are in Throughputs and Innovators.

Over the past 5 years, Throughputs an

main drivers o the improvement in inno

a result rom strong growth in Commun

designs (8.9%), Knowledge-intensive s

market sales (17.0%). Perormance in In

M A L T A

For Malta, one o the Catching-up countries, innovation perormance is

below the EU27 average but the rate o improvement is above that o the


are in Finance and support and Economic eects and relative weaknesses

are in Human resources, Linkages & entrepreneurship and Innovators.

Over the past 5 years, Throughputs


strong growth in Community designs

o Payments fows (37.5%). Perorman

grown, in particular due to a strong

(-18.4%) than the increase in New-to-


40/64

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70

Human resources

Finance and support

ENABLERS

Firm investments


Throughputs

FIRM A CTIVITIES

Innovators



-2% 0% 2% 4% 6%

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80

Human resources

Finance and support

ENABLERS

Firm investments


Throughputs

FIRM AC TIVITIES

Innovators

Economic effects

OUTPUTS


-2% 0% 2% 4% 6%

N E T H E R L A N D S

A U S T R I A

Netherlands is one o the Innovation ollowers. Its innovation perormance

is just above the EU27 average but the rate o improvement is below


perormance, are in Finance and support and Linkages & entrepreneurship

while relative weaknesses are in Firm investments and Innovators.

Over the past 5 years, Human resources and Finance and support have

been the main drivers o the improvement in innovation perormance, in

For Austria, among the group o Innovation ollowers, innovation

perormance is above the EU27 average. Within this group it is a growth

leader with a rate o improvement just above that o the EU27. Relative

strengths, compared to the countrys average perormance, are in

Linkages & entrepreneurship and Innovators and relative weaknesses

particular as a result rom strong gro

S&E and SSH doctorate graduates

(23.8%). Perormance in Firm investm

has worsened, in particular due t

expenditures (-1.5%) and the Firm r

Over the past 5 years, Human reso

improvement in innovation pero

growth in S&E and SSH graduates

But also Firm investments, Linkag

and Economic eects have shown a


41/64

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60

Human resources

Finance and support

ENABLERS

Firm investments


Throughputs

FIRM A CTIVITIES

Innovators



-4% 0% 4% 8% 12% 1

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70

Human resources

Finance and support

ENABLERS

Firm investments


Throughputs

FIRM A CTIVITIES

Innovators



-2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8

P O L A N D

Poland is among the group o Catching-up countries, with an innovation

perormance considerably below the EU27 average but an above average

rate o improvement. Relative strengths, compared to the countrys

average perormance, are in Human resources, Firm investments and

Economic eects and relative weaknesses are in Finance and support,

Linkages & entrepreneurship and Throughputs.

Over the past 5 years, Throughputs have been a strong driver o improved

perormance and Human resources and Linkages and entrepreneurship

have also been drivers o improvem

strong growth in S&E and SSH doctorat

co-publications (20.6%), EPO patent

(11.1%) and Community designs (27

and Economic eects has worsened,

New-to-market sales (-13.4%).

P O R T U G A L

For Portugal, one o the Moderate innovators, innovation perormance is

below the EU27 average but the rate o improvement is more than twice

that o the EU27 making it a growth leader within its group o countries.

Relative strengths compared to the countrys average perormance are


strong growth in S&E and SSH gradua

graduates (19.2%), Broadband acces

expenditures (26 3%) EPO patents (8


42/64

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60

Human resources

Finance and support

ENABLERS

Firm investments


Throughputs

FIRM A CTIVITIES

Innovators



-4% 0% 4% 8% 12% 16% 20%

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70

Human resources

Finance and support

ENABLERS

Firm investments


Throughputs

FIRM A CTIVITIES

Innovators

Economic effects

OUTPUTS


-2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10%

R O M A N I A

S L O V E N I A

Romania is one o the growth leaders among the Catching-up countries,

with an innovation perormance well below the EU27 average but a rate o

improvement that is one o the highest o all countries. Relative strengths,

compared to the countrys average perormance, are in Innovators and

Economic eects and relative weaknesses are in Finance and support

and Throughputs.

For Slovenia, one o the Moderate innovators, innovation perormance

is just below the EU27 average but the rate o improvement is above


perormance, are in Human resources, Finance and support and Innovators

and relative weaknesses are in Throughputs.


main drivers o the improvement in

as a result rom strong growth i

Private credit (17.4%), Broadband

trademarks (36.0%) and Communit

investments and Innovators has in


main drivers o the improvement in

as a result rom strong growth in

trademarks (7.5%) and Communit


increased at a slower pace.


43/64

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60

Human resources

Finance and support

ENABLERS

Firm investments


Throughputs

FIRM A CTIVITIES

Innovators



-8% -4% 0% 4% 8% 12% 16

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00

Human resources

Finance and support

ENABLERS

Firm investments


Throughputs

FIRM AC TIVITIES

Innovators



-2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8

S L O V A K I A

For Slovakia, one o the Catching-up countries, innovation perormance

is well below the EU27 average but the rate o improvement is above


perormance, are in Firm investments and Economic eects and relative

weaknesses are in Finance and support, Linkages & entrepreneurship,

Throughputs and Innovators.

Over the past 5 years, Human resources, Finance and support and

notably Throughputs have been the main drivers o the improvement

in innovation perormance, in particula

S&E and SSH graduates (8.7%), Broad

patents (12.5%), Community trademar

(14.4%). Perormance in Firm investme

to a decrease in Business R&D expend

F I N L A N D

For Finland, one o the Innovation leaders, innovation perormance is well

above the EU27 average but the rate o improvement is slightly below


perormance are in Human resources and Firm investments and relative

perormance, in particular as a result

SMEs collaborating with others (12.

Payments fows (17.0%). Perormance

in particular due to a decrease Know

S W E D E N


44/64

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00

Human resources

Finance and support

ENABLERS

Firm investments


Throughputs

FIRM A CTIVITIES

Innovators



-4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6%

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80

Human resources

Finance and support

ENABLERS

Firm investments


Throughputs

FIRM A CTIVITIES

Innovators

Economic effects

OUTPUTS


-8% -4% 0% 4% 8% 12%

S W E D E N

U N I T E D K I N G D O M

Sweden is one o the Innovation leaders and the best perorming EU

Member State, although its rate o improvement is below that o the EU27.

Relative strengths, compared to the countrys average perormance, are

in Human resources, Finance and support and Firm investments and

relative weaknesses are in Throughputs and Innovators.

Over the past 5 years, Finance and support and Throughputs have been

the main drivers o the improvement in innovation perormance, in

For the UK, one o the Innovation leaders, innovation perormance is

above the EU27 average but the rate o improvement is below that o the


are in Human resources, Finance and support, Firm investments and

Linkages& entrepreneurshipand relativeweaknessesarein Throughputs

particular as a result rom relative

(9.1%), Broadband access by rms

and Technology Balance o Payme


eects has worsened, in particular

collaborating with others (-4.5%) a

Over the past 5 years, Finance and

the improvement in innovation per

strong growth in Venture capital (2

(30.4%). Perormance in Firm inves

Innovators and Economic eects

C R O A T I A


45/64

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60

Human resources

Finance and support

ENABLERS

Firm investments


Throughputs

FIRM A CTIVITIES

Innovators



-2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60

Human resources

Finance and support

ENABLERS

Firm investments


Throughputs

FIRM A CTIVITIES

Innovators

Economic effects

OUTPUTS


-2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10

C R O A T I A

For Croatia, one o the Catching-up countries, innovation perormance is

well below the EU27 average and unlike most other Catching-up countries

its rate o improvement is below that o the EU27. Relative strengths,

compared to the countrys average perormance, are in Innovators and

Economic eects and relative weaknesses are in Firm investments and

Throughputs.

Over the past 5 years, Human resource

have been the main drivers o the impro

in particular as a result rom Lie-long l

co-publications (10.1%). Perormance in

has worsened, in particular due to a dec

(-3.6%) and Technology Balance o Pay

T U R K E Y

For Turkey, one o the Catching-up countries, innovation perormance

is well below the EU27 average but the rate o improvement is abovethat o the EU27. Relative strengths, compared to the countrys average

perormance, are in Finance and support, Innovators and Economic

eects and relative weaknesses are in Human resources (where the

countrys relative perormance is close to zero meaning that it is at the

lowest end o the range o countries included in the EIS) Firm investments

Over the past 5 years, Finance and supp

European innovation scoreboard 2008 - Comparative analysis of innovation performance

Documents

Transcript of European innovation scoreboard 2008 - Comparative analysis of innovation performance