e

:

e : :. . .

9 788686 281173

ISBN 978-86-86281-17-3

,

. .

.

, 2012.

: , ,

, .43, , www.fefa.edu.rs

a , 24, , www.cpn.rs

:. . ,

,

: . . .

:. , .

.

:

:

:

: ...

: 500

:978-86-86281-17-3

, -, , . , 47028, 2011-2014. , - , .

This project has been implemented with the support from the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development and the Centre for the Promotion of Science of the Government of Serbia. This publication reflects the views only of the authors; the Ministry of Education, Science and Tecnological Development and the Centre for the Promotion of Science of the Government of Serbia cannot be held responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

3

: : -, , - () 2012. , , . -, - , .

, , , 27 , , 27. -, , - . : - -. , . , , , -, , -

4

, - .

, - , . , , : - , , - . - , . , , , -. , , , .

, - , - -, , - , :

, - , , . -. - - . . , - .

5

(), - . , , - . - , 46%; - , 78%, 56%. , 24% 2009. ( 2008. ), 2010. 59%, 2011. 72%. - - .

: , .

M , J , , - , , - . , -, , , , - . , - , . . - , - , . , , .

6

- , :

, - , , - , - -, - . , . , , - , . -, - .

, o-, , , - - .

- . , - 5 - 15% , . - , : (1) - , (2)

7

. // .

, , , - , . - - . , - . - .

e - - - , - - . - , -, , - :

: , . : - . - - , -, .: , . , - . , , - . : - , .

8

- , - - . , , . / , , . - : .

, , :

- (), - ; , , - (1999) - (2010) - , , ... , (. - ) ; - , (-) , () -,

9

- - .

- - . - , .

, - , : , - , , -, , , -/ , . , -, , , - - . , - - , , . -- , . : , , . - , . , , ,

10

-, - , - .

-, - . , ()- , , - , , , , - .

, , (), , .

. . .

11

........................................................................... 3

1. : .................................................... 13

, , ....................................... 15

, , . , ................................................................ 31

E .................................................... 50

M , J , ................................................... 65

, ......................................... 84

2. : ............ 105

, , C KO ................................. 107

, , , ... 123

12

, , ........................................ 141

Je , - ............................................................................................. 160

, ................... 177

, , ............................... 186

T .......................................... 207

, J , , .... 222

................................................................................................. 241

: , 10. 2012. , .......................... 257

Proceedings from the sixth annual FEFA Europe Day Conference entitled Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Tools for Success in the EU Market, held on May 10, 2012 in Belgrade, supported by the Delegation of the European Union to the Republic of Serbia and the Republic of Serbia Centre for the Promotion of Science ............. 267

1

15

*

, , tekicz@uns.ac.rs. , , borocki@uns.ac.rs

. , , ilijac@uns.ac.rs

-. , - , - . .

: , , , , -

Abstract

The paper analyzes innovative performances of Serbia and other countries from South East Europe, benchmark their innovative performances with innovation leaders and provide insights about the strengths and weaknesses in innovation-related policies and practices. The findings presented here are based on studies on global innovativness.

Keywords: innovation, innovation index, Serbia, Southeast Europe, compe ti-t i veness

* , 47028, 2011-2014. , , , 114-451-2435/2011-01, 2011-2014. - .

16

:

, , , -, , - , , . , , - (Huggins & Izushi, 2002). , , . - , , .

, (Porter, 1990) , . , (Schwab, 2011), - , - , 12 , . - . , . , - , . - , , .

, . - , . .

17

, , . , (Intelligence Unit, 2007) , . - .

(, , , , , , ) , , , , . , , : , ? - .

- . , - , .

(Global Competitiveness Report; Schwab, 2011) 2004. .

18

:

12 . - : , , , , , - , , - , , , . - 12 , - ( -, ). - 1 7, 12 .

, - . 113 - . 2012. , 142 , 14.000 - . .

: - , - , , , , .

Global Innovation Index, - (Dutta, 2012) INSEAD 2007. - -, - . (2012) INSEAD

19

(WIPO), 141 .

: - , 0 100. - . : (1) , (2) , (3) , (4) - , (5) . - : (6) - (7) . -. 84 , . - , , O , .

(Knowledge for Development, K4D) (Chen & Dahlman, 2005) - . (Knowledge Assessment Methodology, KAM) 148 - 146 . , 0 10.

(Knowledge Index, KI) (Knowledge Economy Index, KEI) - (World Bank, 2012). - . .

20

:

: (1) , (2) , (3) (4) -- .

, - . , -- ().

(Innovation Union Scorebord, 2011) 2020. - 27 , , , , , . 2001. .

- , 25 -. : (1) , (2) , , (3) . - : (1) , (2) (3) . - : .

-, , . 0 1. : (1) , (2) , (3) - (4) .

21

- (Adrew, DeRocco & Taylor, 2009). . - , . -e: (Innovation input) - (Innovation performance), 24 , 110 50 .

, (Intelligence Unit, 2007) 82 . : (1) , (2) (3) - . (top-down) (bottom-up), -, , 485 .

1, , .

A

, , , - . , - , - .

- , . - . , ,

22

:

, , , , , , - , , , , , . ? , . - , , , , . , .

- , . - ( ), 0,5 . , . - ( + , , ), : (, , ), (, , ) (, , , ). , - 30 (Schwab, 2011; Dutta, 2011), - .

, - - , . - , (Schwab, 2011; Dutta, 2011), ( 1). , , - . - () (Dutta, 2011). , ,

23

1

20

112

012

-

2012

-

201

1

20

05-2

006

(Wor

ld B

ank,

201

2)

2007

-

2

009

142

141

3414

682

110

113

1384

2512

316

24

-

10

.

.

.

.

59.

60

.

74

.

76

.

78

.

79

.

-

90.

95.

10

0.

50.

69

.

76.

88.

93.

97.

10

4.

10

5.

-

12

3.

42.

43.

45.

46

.

62.

-

66

.

72

.

74.

90

.

23.

25.

28.

31

.

-

32.

34.

36.

39.

45.

49.

57

.

-

69.

82

.

31.

34.

39.

48.

58

.

69.

-

10

1.

-

30.

32.

42.

56.

67

.

42.

48.

53.

67.

76.

-

24

:

. .

1 , , 27. - 15% -. , . , - () (), (Dutta, 2011). - . , 31,4, 20,04 (Dutta, 2011).

40.68

34.17

39.95

40.15

30.38

36.18

34.14

40.67

35.27

36.84

50.7

68.24

16.8

27

0 20 40 60 80

1 (Dutta, 2011)

-, 27 - : (1) , (2) , (3) , (4) -, (5) , (6) (7) .

25

( ), - ( ).

2 - , . , - . - , - , . - .

59.67

39.56

36.66

41.02

35.34

29.15

33.33

78.13

50.61

51.02

51.58

49.97

45.88

44.47

!

" # # # $%

& #

27 %

2 27 (Dutta, 2011)

(Dutta, 2011) -, - (venture capital) , . , - ,

26

:

. 3 - -! , (Dutta, 2011). . , 20 (Schwab, 2011). , - - .

0

20

40

60

80

100

a

!

" # # # $%

& #

%

'

27

3 , 27, (Dutta, 2011)

, - . - , . , - , -

27

, , , , , (Schwab, 2011).

- - - . -. ( ), ( ), ( , , -) ( , - ).

, . - . - , - (Dutta, 2011). , . - , - (Innovation Union Scoreboard, 2011) 27. , (Schwab, 2011).

(2011) - -. (Schwab, 2011; World Bank, 2012). . ( 4). , , . (Schwab, 2011).

28

:

0

20

40

60

80

a

!

" # # # $%

& #

%

4

- (Dutta, 2011) . 141 ( ): , , , , , -, , . , , - ( ) ( -), - . , , , . , , , , .

29

, . , , 27 , 27. - -, - . . , . .

, , - , - - . - ( , ). . , - , - .

, - , - . , - . - 15 60 (, ) (, & , 2009).

30

:

, - - . , - , .

Adrew, P., DeRocco, S., Taylor, A. (2009) The innovation imperative in manu-facturing how the United States can restore its edge. BCG

Chen, D., Dahlman, C. (2005) The Knowledge Economy, the KAM Methodology and World Bank Operations, World Bank

Dutta, S. (2012) Global Innovation Index 2011/12, INSEAD and WIPOInnovation Union Scoreboard (2011) The innovation unions performance sco-

reboard for research and innovation, Pro Inno EurpeIntelligence Unit (2007) Innovation: Transforming the way business creates,

Economist Huggins, R., Izushi, H. (2002) World Knowledge Competitiveness Index 2002:

Benchmarking the Globes High performing Regions, Cardiff: Robert Hug-gins Associates;

Porter, M. (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nations, London, Macmillan.Schwab, K. (2011) Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011, World Economic

ForumTekic, Z., Cosic, I., Penezic, N. (2009) Technology based entrepreneurship and the

role of university: the case of Serbia, Proceedings of ICEIRD, pp. 240248 World Bank (2012) http://info.worldbank.org/etools/kam2/KAM_page5.asp,

27.06.2012

31

,

*1

. , , , , nsavic@fefa.edu.rs

. , , , , gpitic@fefa.edu.rs. . , ,

, , atrbovic@fefa.edu.rs

, . - , , - . , - . , , - . , f, - , .

: , , ,

1* , 47028, 2011-2014. , .

32

:

Abstract

The role of knowledge, innovations and creative industries in modern econ-omy is the principle research topic of this article. Knowledge is identified as the facilitator of growth of productivity and economic growth, which puts new light on informations, technology and learning process in strengthen-ing economic performance. Investment in knowledge enhances the pro-duction capacity of other production factors and enables the tranforma-tion of knowledge in new products and processes. The authors present the relevant literature review, citing key authors in this field, as well as stra-tegic guidelines of OECD and EU with the aim of creating a competitive economy based on knowledge. They conclude by giving an overview of the situation in Serbia in this respect and providing recommendations for the development of innovative and entrepreneurial Serbian economy. Educa-tion reform, strengthening of links between the business and research or-ganizations, and stimulating creative industries by creating the required infrastructure and better financing for entrepreneurial ideas, stand at the core of the proposed policy measures.

Key words: knowledge, innovations, creative industries, education reform

:

XX , (Drucker, 1966, 1985, 1994), (Bell, 1973) (Toffler, 1970, 1980 1990) - , - -, . , (Araya, 2010), - . (2003) . (1996) , - ,

33

,

. . .

(1996, 12) : , , . . . - , - , . - . , - ; . . -, , - . , .

XVIII -. - . XX . , , - , - . , . , 3- ,

34

:

. - . - .

. . . - - ; / - . - - . () , . . , , - . , .

(2004, 2007, 2008) - : () ( ) - , , , () - ; , - , () , -,

35

,

. , .

- - . - . , , , , - .

-. . - - . - .

. (Schumpeter, 1942) : , , - . (2005, 33-36) (. Oslo Manual) : () - - ; () ; () - , , , , () - , . - -

36

:

, - . (Stoneman, 2011, 23) , , , - . - . , -, , , , . .

, . - (). - . . y (Forau and Phelps, 2009) . - , , - . , . ( - ) .

(Porter and Rivkin, 2012) . (2003, 21) . - , . :

37

,

; (1993, 9) , , , ; ; - , ; - , - - , ; , ( - ), ; XX ; (1942) - - .

(2003, 67) - o , . (Ceves, 2002, 223) - a . - . . -, , - , - . (Baumol and Browen, 1968) ; -

38

:

. . - . - - . - . . - . . . , - . .

(Potts, 2011) . , . - - -. - - . - . (Potts, 2011, 152) - (Porter, 2000, 2008) - . (Baumol, 2010) - .

a (Peter Drucker, 1994) -

39

,

, , , . (John, Howkins, 2007) - . (2005) - . - , . - . - .

- , - XX . , . (2002, 12-13) . . -, , , - . - - .

() - , --- . - . . - .

, (Flew and Cunningham, 2010) ,

40

:

21. .

, (UNCTAD, 2008) : 1. - -, 2. - , 3. - , 4. - 5. .

. , , . , , .

, - . , -, . (. ), - , . - , . - , . - - . , ,

41

,

. - , - . . - .

-, -. - . . , - .

- , : (1) , (2) (3) . , -, . , , , . ( ; ; ; -), - , - . ) (- , - , ), ) , ( ; - ; , . - ; -

42

:

, .

- . - , . - . . , , -, - . - . , , , , , . - , , , , , , - , , . - - , . - 2020 -, . , , -, .

- , , , , -

43

,

, , - , , , - , , - , - .

: 1) - ; 2) ; 3) - ; 4) ; 5) ; 6) ; 7) -, , 8) . : - ; ; ; ; ; , , -, . , . , , -, - . - - . , -, .

: , , ; - : -; ;

44

:

-; ; ; ; ; -; ; ; . - , , . - -. , , . , - , / (. : ) , - - , . , , . - .

7 (7) . , 7 . , - , 90%, - ( ), . - , .

, , , -

45

,

. , , - . :

) ; - - . ---, , - ;

) . , - - , -

) - . - , , .

, , . - , (. , , , , -, , .), , , , , , , , , , , , , , , -, , , (-, , , ). - , , , .

46

:

, - , -, 12 - : , , , , , , , , , -, -, ( , 2007). . . , - , . , - 2010. , - . , , . , , - . - , - ( , , , , .).

, - , . . . . -, -, . .

47

,

, - . - -. . - - .

- , , , - . , -. , , . (, , , -...). , . . - , - , , .

Abramowitz, M. and P. A. David. 1996. Measuring Performance of Knowled-ge-Based Economy u: OECD, Employment and Growth in the Knowledge-Based Economy. Par is: OECD, s. 35- 60.

Araya, Daniel. 2010. Educational Policy in the creative economy. In: Dani-el Araya & Michael. A. Peters, eds. Education in the Creative Economy: Knowledge and Learning in the Age of Innovation. New York: Peter Lang.

Baumol, William J. and William G. Browen. 1968. Performing Arts: The Eco-nomic Dilemma. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Baumol, William J. 2010. The Microtheory of Innovative Entrepreneurship. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Bell, Daniel. 1973. The Coming of Post-Industrial Society. New York: Basic Books.

48

:

Ceves, Richard E. 2002. Creative Industries: Contracts Between Art and Com-merce. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Drucker, Peter. 1966. The Effective Executive. New York: Harper & Row.

Drucker, Peter. 1985. Innovation and Entrepreneurship. London: Heinemann.

Drucker, Peter. 1994. Post Capitalist Society. New York: Harper Row.

Flew, Terry and Stuart Cunningham. 2010. Creative Industries after the First Decade of Debate. The Information Society: An International Journal Vol 26, Issue 2, 2010: 113-123.

Florida, Richard. 2003. The Rise of the Creative Class. New York: Basic Books.

Florida, Richard. 2005. The Flight of the Creative Class: The New Global Com-petition for Talent. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

Foray, Dominique and Edmund S. Phelps. 2010. The Challenge of Innovati-on in Turbulent Times: A Report Submitted to the Global Agenda Council. Working Paper No. 56, April 2010. New York: Columbia University, Center on Capitalism and Society.

Foray, Dominique. and B. A. Lundvall. 1996. The Knowledge-Based Econo-my: From the Economics of Knowledge to the Learning Economy u: OECD Documents: Employment and Growth in the Knowledge-Based Economy, Paris: OECD, s. 11-32

Howkins John. 2005. The Mayors Commission on the Creative Industries in: Hartley, John, ed. Creative Industries. Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing: 117-125.

Howkins, John. 2007. The Creative Economy: How People Make Money from Ideas. London: Penguin.

OECD. 1996. Knowledge-Based Economy. Paris: OECD.

OECD. 1999. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 1999 - Ben-chmarking Knowledge-based Economies. Paris: OECD.

OECD. 2005. The Oslo Manual: Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Inter-preting Technological Innovation Data. Paris: OECD.

OECD. 1999. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 1999 - Ben-chmarking Knowledge-based Economies. Paris: OECD.

Porter, Michael. 2000. Location, Competitiopn and Economic Development: Local Clusters in a Global Economy, Economic Development Quaterly, 14(1): 15-34.).

Porter, Michael. 2008. Clusters and Economic Policy: Aligning Public Policy with the New Economics of Competition. Institute for Strategy and Com-petitiveness White Paper 5/18/09.

49

,

Porter, Michael E. and Jan W. Rivkin. 2012. The Looming Challenge to U.S. Competitiveness. Harvard Business Review No. 3. March 2012. Massachu-setts: Harvard University Press.

Potts, Jason. 2011. Creative Industries and Economic Evolution. Massachu-setts: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.

Romer, Paul. 1993. Economic Growth, in: David R. Henderson, ed. The For-tunate Encyclopedia of Economics. New York: Time Warner Books.

Rodrik, Deni. 2004. Industrial Policy for the Twenty-First Century. CEPR Discussion Paper 4767. London: Centre for Economic Policy Research.

Rodrik, Deni. 2007. Normalizing Industrial Policy, prepared for Commission on Growth and Development. Massachusetts: Massachusetts: John F. Ke-nnedy School of Governmen, Harvard University.

Rodrik, Deni. 2008. Industrial Policy: Dont Ask Why, Ask How. Middle East Development Journal. 2008. p. 1-29.

Rodrik, Deni. 2011. The Globalization Paradox: Why Global Markets, States, and Democracy Cant Coexist. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Schumpeter, Joseph. 1942. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.

Stoneman Paul. 2011. Soft Innovation: Economics, Product Aesthetics, and the Creative Industries. New York: Oxford University Press.

Toffler, Alvin. 1970. Future Shock. New York: Random House.Toffler, Alvin. 1980. The Third Wave. New York: Bantam Books.Toffler, Alvin. 1990. Powershift: Knowledge, Wealth and Violence at the Edge

of the 21st Century. New York: Bantam Books.Trbovi, Ana, Vonnegut, Andrew, Brnabi , Ana, Valentine, Sharon, and Seas,

William, Konkurentni potencijal 11 grana srpske privrede, Ekonomska misao, no 1-2, 2007, p.52-66.

UNCTAD. 2008. Creative Economy Report 2008. Geneve: United Nations.

50

E

, Improved SME Competitiveness and Innovation Project (ICIP)

2012. , - . , 2020 . - , - . , , . - , - -, , . .

: , , , -,

Abstract

When Serbia received candidate status in March 2012 as a member state of the European Union, optimism was expressed within the country that it would be a powerful tool for further development of Serbias innova-

51

tion policy. However, this overlooks the fact that mentioned strategies like Innovation Europe 2020 and Knowledge-based Society are mainly a response to the current economic crisis intended to overcome structur-al weaknesses. Furthermore, these documents do not present a strategic response towards the new global social and economic challenges facing innovation policy. For a transitional country like Serbia, it is essential to strengthen the ways to identify innovations, to use a wider innovation po-tential and to motivate politicians, scientists and entrepreneurs to cooper-ate within these activities. This will enhance innovation leapfrogging as a response to the challenging future.

Key words: innovations, innovation policy, strategy, global challenges, eco-nomic crisis

- 2012. , - . - 2020 - . Europe 2020 , - . , , - . : - - ; - .

52

:

- , - , . , -, , . , . - , , . , - ; , . . - -. , . - , . , 7 % ( 1%), . , . , , -. , - , . - (, , ) .

53

, , 2020 - (European Commission, 2010). - . , - , . - . . , . , () - . - . , .

- . , - ( ), . , , , - , - .

laissez-faire - . ,

54

:

. - ; -, , , . - -, - , , 21. . - , , . , - - (National Economic Council, 2011).

, , ( , ) . , , . , - .

? , . , - . .

55

2008. 1,5 % - - 2% . 2010. 12,3 % . , , , - 60% . - 7% (, 2011).

, . - . - . - . , .

, , - - . - , , . - . . , - , - . - , .

(2010),

-

56

:

2008. . - OECD- (OECD, 2010). . ; - . - .

, :

, - , , , , - .

. - . , - :

, , , .

, -. . - .

57

OECD (2010) - , - .

. , (2012) , . - - . , - .

- , , - - . - , , - . :

, - . - . .

58

:

- . - .

- . , - , - , . .

- . , , ( , -, ). . - . . . . , , .

1980. , - .

59

- . -, . . , - . - , - . . - 72% , 67%, 55% . - 2009. , 27% (Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation EFI, 2012). 1.500 , (, 2011).

1984. -, - . - , - (European Commission, 2009).

. - , . : - . - - . 2008. - ...

60

:

....

, , - . , , , , , - ., - ( , 2012). - , , .

. - , -. 2010. , , , - . , - - . , - . - .

61

- . , - .

, - , . (. leapfrogging) - , -, . -, . , . , , - . , . , , , , . . - , , , - , , . , .

-. ICIP - PRO INNO EUROPE -

62

:

. :

- -, - , , -, - - - .

- , - , . - .

, - :

, - , , . -

63

. - - . . , . (), - . , , - . - 46%; - 78%, 56%. , 24% 2009. ( 2008. ), 2010. 59%, 2011. 72%. - - . - : ; , , - . , - . , . - , , , .

64

, . , , , , . - .

Bauer J, Lang A, Schneider V. (2012), Innovation Policy and Governance in High-Tech Industries, The Complexity of Coordination, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin

Ernst D. (2011), Chinas Innovation Policy Is a Wake-Up Call for America, Asia Pacific Issues, Analysis from the East-West Center, . 100.

European Commission (2009), The impact of publicly funded research on inno-vation, An analysis of European Framework Programmes for Research and Development, PRO INNO Europe Paper . 7

European Commission(2010), EUROPE 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, Brussels

Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation (EFI) (2012), Gutachten zur Forschung, Innovation und Technologischer Leistungsfhigkeit Deutsc-hland

. (2011), Mini Country Report/Serbia; PRO INNO EUROPEMinisterial report on the OECD Innovation Strategy (2010), Innovation to str-

engthen growth and address global and social challenges: Key FindingsNational Economic Council (2011), A Strategy for American Innovation secu-

ring our economic growth and prosperity, The White House, WashingtonOECD (2008), Open Innovation in Global Networks, .11OECD(2011), OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2011Orr G. (2011), Strategy Practice, Unleashing innovation in China, McKinsey

QuarterlyPorter M.(2012), The looming challenge to U.S. competitiveness, Harvard Bu-

siness Review

65

*

M , , , cvijic.mirjana@gmail.com

. J , , , borocki@uns.ac.rs

. , , , danijelalalic@uns.ac.rs

, -, . - . , - . , , , - , , , . - , , . , , - , , , .

* , 47028, 2011-2014. - , .

66

:

, - , . . - , . , , .

: , , , - , ,

Abstract

All enterprises, regardless of their size, level of business activity, or com-plexity of business environment have a unique model by which they op-erate. Business models represent a simplification of every-day operations and functions of an enterprise. Until recently, the majority of business models were so called closed business models, which means that inno-vative and other business activities occurred mainly inside the enterprise and were performed by employees. Developments in science and technol-ogy, an explosion of available information and knowledge, the expansion of small and medium enterprises, increased fluctuation and migration of labour, emergence of new markets, new and more complex customer re-quirements, as well as other erosion factors led to a gradual obsolescence of closed business and innovation model. Open innovation as part of a new business model assumes that enterprises can and should use external and internal ideas, as well as external and internal paths to market, as they aim to improve internal innovation, and expand market potential for ex-ternal use of innovation. The establishment of new and more open busi-ness models provides enterprises with a chance to enhance their innovative activities, as well as the cooperation with other market participants, and exchange of ideas, resources, and technology, all in order to improve on meeting customer needs. Small and medium enterprises in the Republic of Serbia need to work ex-tensively on improvements in internal knowledge and technology structure, and other tangible and intangible resources, i.e. on improving their own in-novation capacity. Once an adequate knowledge base is set, enterprises can explore and mark their own innovative potential, and proceed with intense networking with external knowledge sources and technologies, to provide

67

new value through the efficient and effective combination of internal and external sources. By doing so, the enterprises will contribute towards im-provement of their own, as well as the national innovation culture. The government should take the role of mediator and by so encourage the process of networking and mutual cooperation among enterprises. The government should also provide for the necessary expertise and financial support in achieving this crucial national interest.

Key words: innovations, entrepreneurship, innovation activity, innovation ca-pacity, research and development, open innovation model

, , , . . : (Chesbrough, 2006). , , -, , - . . .

- , , -. , , , , , , , , . .

, , - -. , .

. - ,

68

:

-. .

-. , , . - , -. , .

. . . . - , .

, - . , - (, 2009).

, , , , , , .

, , - , , , .

- . , - . -

69

, - . , a , - . - . - . , - . - . .

. - , . , - , . - , - . , , -, . , , , .

- - . - ( ), - ( ) - .

70

:

, , - . , -, .

- , - . , , , (Fagerberg, 2004).

- - , , - , , , , , . , , . - , -, , . - , .

1

. , -.

1Closed Innovation , .

71

. - - , . , -, , , , , - . , . - , . .

XX - (Chesbrough, 2006). , . - , . -, , , . , - . - . -, , . , - - .

(Venture Capital2) - . , - .

2 2011. . . .

72

:

, . , - -, . . - , , , . .

-. . , , , , . , , . , , , - .

. - - , , . , - , . - , .

73

3

- , , (Chiaroni, 2011). , , . - - , -, . , . start up . , , , . . ( 1).

!

% #

% #

( !

) !

( *

" # " #

1 (Chesbrough, 2006)

- . -

3Open innovation ,

74

:

, - - . , . - . , - -. (. start-up), . .

- , . . - , . - , - .

, . - .

- . , - , - . , , . -

75

, , .

- . - . , - , - . - . , -, . . - , . , , . , , , .

, , - . 2001. 2002. , 2000. , - (Chesbrough, 2006). , , - . , (Chesbrough, 2006).

, , , - . -

76

:

. , , , , -, , .

- , . - (Bogers, 2010). , - , , . . - - . - - , . .

- , , . - . . - . - , . - , .

(. Procter & Gamble) - - 50 % (Lichtenthaler, 2011). , -

77

. (Lichtenthaler, 2011).

- -. , , . , - . , - . - , , .

. - . - , , , , , , . : -, , , , -, , , , .

- . , - , - . , , . . IBM , (Euchner, 2011). , -

78

:

.

-, XX , - . -. , , - , . , . - . , . . . , - . , - , - .

XX XXI , - , . - , . , , - . . , ,

79

. , - - . - , , . ( 1% ) (3% ) (, 2010).

-, , - , , , , , , - ( , 2010, . , . 110/2005 18/2010). - -. , , - . , - , , - .

, ( 2005. ) . . - , , - .

80

:

- -. -. : - , , , - , (, 2012).

- - . - . , - , . - - (Serbian Business Angels Network, 2012).

- . ; . - - . -, , .

, - , , - , . . - -

81

.

, , . - - -. , , . . . , , , , , . , , . - , .

. -, . - . - , .

- , -

82

:

. . , , , .

- . . . - , -. , .

. , . , , , . - , , , .

-, , , . , . - . , - . , , - , .

- .

83

, - .

Bogers M., Afuah A. and Bastian B. (2010), Users as Innovators: A Review, Critique and Future Research Directions; Journal of Management; vol 36. No.4, 857875; SAGE.

Chesbrough H. (2006), Open business models, Harward business school press, Boston, Massachusetts.

Chesbrough H. (2006), Open innovation the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology, Harward business school press, Boston, Massa-chusetts.

Chiaroni D., Chiesa V., Frattini F. (2011), The open innovation journey: how firms dinamically implement the emerging innovation management para-digm, Technovation, No. 31, pg. 34-43, Elsevier Science Ltd. Oxford.

Euchner, J. (2011), Open services innovation: an interview with Henry Ches-brough; Industrial Research Institute, Inc.

Fagerberg J., Mowery D.C., Nelson R. R. (2004), Innovation, Oxford University Press.

Lichtenthaler, U. (2011), Open Innovation: Past Research, Current Debates and Future Directions, Academy of Management Perspectives; vol 25 No.1, 7593.

Riznic, D. (2010), The Importance of Research and Development for Compa-nies and Enterpreneurs in Gaining Competitive Advantage, Enterpre neur-ship&Innovation Journal, Issue 2, Year II, 108-120; Faculty of Business and Management, the Ruse University.

: http://www.mpn.gov.rs/userfiles/nauka-pravna_akta/zakon_ino-cir.pdf

, . (2012), - , , , .

, : http://www.sban.eu/ser/?page_id=2

, . (2009), , , , .

84

*

. , , , snezana.radukic@eknfak.ni.ac.rs

. , , mizrad@eunet.rs

- , - - . , . , , -, . .

: , , , Global Inno-vation Index,

* - -, , . 44007 , .

85

Abstract

Innovation is one of the strategic factors of enterprise success in contem-porary conditions of doing business, requiring continuous design of inno-vative solutions in order to quickly adapt to changing consumer demands and competitive environment. Small and medium enterprises supported by foreign direct investment contribute significantly to economic growth, re-duce unemployment and improve the competitive position of the country. It is therefore necessary to encourage innovation of small and medium en-terprises through various programs, with the aim of creating a competitive, export-oriented, environment to enable rapid economic development of Serbia. Therefore the aim of this paper based on the analysis of innovation performances of Serbia will be to indicate the areas of innovation in where measures could be undertaken in order to increase the competitiveness of the Serbian economy.

Keywords: innovation, competitiveness, Serbia, Global Innovation Index, innovation pillars

. , , - , , , -. -. , - . - . , - - , , , , .

, .

86

:

. , , .

( ) ( ). , , , , - .

, , , - . , , , - . , -, .

. , . - .

- . , . - , -, , - . , - . ,

87

. - . , - - , .

-, , -. - .

, . , -, , . - . (2009), - , . , . . , , - , -.

. , , , - (Chaminade, C., Edquist, C., 2006). . -

88

:

- , , (Chaminade, C., Edquist, C., 2008). , - :

. - ; , -, - ; ; ; . -.

, (Smits, R., Kuhlmann, S., 2004, . 4-32).

(2009), - - . - , . , . , , - , - (OECD, 2009).

89

- . , .

, , - . 2000. . , -. ( 2010. 1,9% 3% (), ) , ( ). (Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme - CIP) , , (, ., , ., 2012, . 523). - 2013. (, ., -, ., , ., 2012, . 435). - , :

( ), ( ) ( ).

- 2009. -

90

:

. . , , . - , - , , . - , , - 21. . , - . , , - , - . , , . . , . - , - . (2009) , , - . - :

. 10 - - 20 - - . . - , . -. , , -

91

, - . . - , - , . , , - . . - . - .

. , - () . , , , , - . . . ( - ). - , . (2011) - (Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, B.T., Lopez, H.) :

1. , - .

92

:

2. , spin-off .

3. , , - , .

4. (. start-up) , spin-off , - , .

5. , , .

(Global Innovation Index)

, (Confederation of Indian Industry) INSEAD (Business School for the World) Canon India, (Global Innovation Index ). - , -

93

, -. 2011. 125 , - 93,2% 98% - (- ). - : - (. Innovation Input Sub-Index) - (. Innovation Output Sub-index). - - , . - , : , , , . - - ( ): . - -. - 20 -. 2007. , 2011. , 125 80 - . , . , .

( 1):

1. . , . 2. : , , - () , . -3. , : - (, ) ( , ).

94

:

1 - (INSEAD, 2011, . 9)

, 2011. , - (6 ) (- 3. , , 4. ) - ( 7. 8. ). : 1. 2. . (), (), () . ().

, 2011. 63,82 , - 2010. , 2009. . (62,12 ) - . (59,64 ) 2010. , .

, 25. (48,12 ), 30. (45,07 ) 42.

95

(38,42 ). : (67. -), (76. ), 80. 125 . - 55. 36,31 , 101. 2010. , 92. 2009. . -- 71. , - 38. . -, , 66. , 54. , 83. , 87. - 73. . , 65. , - 23. .

- -, (. Innovation Efficiency Index) - . - , . 4. , 17. . , , , . 40 .

- , (2005, 2010). . , - .

, - - - ,

96

:

, . - , : - , - - . . - , , - , , - .

, - , , - . .

- - 2005. , - . , , , , - , . , - , - .

- , - , , , , - . , :

;1. ;2.

97

;3. -4. ; 5. ; 6. 7. (, ., 2011, . 82).

- (, , ) , , .

/ 2011. . , - , - , , . , , - 2010-2015 ( , - , 2012).

, , , - , . :

1. (Mini Grants Program) - , ,

98

:

- . 2. (Matching Grants Program) , - , - .

2011. . - 8,4 , - () 2011. - . :

; , - ; ( -, 2011. , 2012).

( 1). , 1. 2. , 3. .

1 -

1.

2.

3.

99

, - 150 , - , , (Boosting Serbian SME Exports to Europe, 2008).

- - , , , - , , - , - . :

1) ,2) -

, 3) -

,4) ,

5) (, ., , ., , ., , ., ., 2008, . ii-iii).

, , , - . - 0,5% - , , . . 2007. 0,3% - 2003. .

100

:

( 1,84%) ( 2,6%, 3,3%). - , , 0,5% , , 1% . , .

- 2006. 2012. - , , . , - 95. 2011/2012. . - .

- :

, - , .

- , :

, - , , , - , , - - - .

, -

101

. , , .

-. , , . . , .

- , . - . . . . . - , . - , .

. - .

, . . - . . , .

102

:

, - . , - . - , , - , , , - .

, - . , , , - . - , .

, . - - - , - , , , , - .

Boosting Serbian SME Exports to Europe, (2008)TAM/BAS Program Team Belgrade, May

103

Chaminade, C., Edquist, C., (2006), From theory to practice. The use of the systems of innovation approach in innovation policy. Forthcoming in Innovation, Lear-ning and Institutions, HAGE, J. & de MEEUS, Oxford University Press.

Chaminade, C., Edquist, C., (2008), Rationales for public policy intervention in the innovation process: A systems of innovation approach, in: Kuhl handbo-ok, Cheltenham, UK.

Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, B.T., Lopez, H., (2011), Open innovation and public policy in Europe, A research report commissioned by ESADE Busine-ss School & the Science and Business Innovation Board AISBL, Science/Bu-siness Publishing Ltd, http://www.sciencebusiness.net/Assets/27d0282a-3275-4f02-8a3cb93c2815208c.pdf

urii, M., Bjeli, S., urii, R., Misailovi, V., urii M., (2008), Inovacije i kompetentnost metalopreraivake delatnosti, Regionalna privredna ko-mora Uice

European Commission, Communication More research for Europe: towards 3% of GDP, COM (202) 499 Final http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/pdf/com3percent_en.pdf

European Commission, (2009), Final report of the Bussines Panel on future innovation policy, Reinvent Europe Through Innovation, From a Knowled-ge Society to Innovation Society, http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/files/panel_report_en.pdf

European Commission, (2009), Proposal for a Decision of the European Parli-ament and of the Council concerning the European Year of Creativity and Innovation, COM(2008) 159 final, Brusseles, 28.3.2008 http://eurlex.eu-ropa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0159:FIN:EN:PDF

European Parliament, (2009), Decision No 1350/2008/EC of the European Par-liament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 concerning the European Year of Creativity and Innovation, http://eurlex. europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:348:0115:0117:EN:PDF

Fond za inovacionu delatnost, (2012), Izvetaj o ostvarivanju Programa rada za 2011. godinu, http://www.inovacionifond.rs/dokumenta/Izvestaj_o_radu_za_2011.pdf

Fond za inovacionu delatnost, (2012), Projekat podrke inovacijama u Srbiji, Beograd, http://www.kombeg.org.rs/Slike/CeMSP/2012/april/Konferenci-ja%20MSP/20120403%20Prezentacija%20Projekat%20podrske%20inova-cijama.pdf

INSEAD The Business School for the World, (2011), The Global Innovation Index 2011: Accelerating Growth and Development, http://api.ning.com/files/jWYaHsNAPc*ySPWOpPOpYsyxxae1*ifIPTPh2tU4HCDQhnFzGNBdlFD3ZohzSRGUU3lISPz1NCFl1sMzEZPb*3xhZsWwYjrk/GLOBALINNO-VATIONINDEXINSEAD.pdf

104

:

Nacionalna strategija privrednog razvoja Republike Srbije od 2006. do 2012. godine, http://www.inkluzija.gov.rs/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/SKUP-STINA-NSPRS.pdf

OECD, (2009), Innovation Policy reviews, www.oecd.org/sti/innovation/reviewsPovrenovi, D., (2011), Analiza inovacione delatnosti u Srbiji, Zavod za intelek-

tualnu svojinu, BeogradSmits, R., Kuhlmann, S., (2004), The rise of systemic instruments in innovation

policy, International Journal Foresight and Innovation Policy, 1(1/2), . 4-32.

Stevanovi, T., Raduki, S., (2012), Podsticanje inovativnosti preduzea sa osvr-tom na Evropsku uniju, zbornik sa XVII naunog skupa Regionalni razvoj i demografski tokovi zemalja Jugoistone Evrope, Univerzitet u Niu, Eko-nomski fakultet, Ni, June 2012, . 519-534.

Stojanovi, B., Petrovi-Ranelovi, M., Raduki, S., (2012), Innovation and competition as determinants of knowledge-based economy with emphasis on Serbia, Proceedings of 2nd International Conference Economics and management based on new technologies EMoNT 2012, Vrnjaka Banja, Serbia, 14-17. September 2012, . 435-444.

Zakon o inovacionoj delatnosti (Slubeni glasnik RS, br. 110/2005 i 18/2010)

2

107

* . ,

, lbarjaktarovic@singidunum.ac.rs

, e a, , avjetrov@fefa.edu.rs

. C KO, e a, , skonjikusic@fefa.edu.rs

2011. 23,7%. je , . - . E - 25.000 . -, . - , - . , - , - . , , - .

: , , , , , .

* , 47028, 2011-2014. - , .

108

:

Abstract

he unemployment rate in Serbia reached 23.7% at the end of 2011. Con-sidering the high unemployment rate as one of the leading problems in the country, the aim of this paper is to analyze incentives for microcredit development within the country as necessary precondition for fostering entrepreneurship. Microcredit is perceived as the main tool for reducing of the unemployment by the means of self-employment. The European Commission defines microcredit as loans up to 25,000 EUR. However, the access to loans up to 25,000 EUR is perceived to be very difficult by small and medium size enterprises (SMEs) in Europe. Nevertheless, in the pe-riod when restrictive credit policy is being implemented by commercial banks, microcredit can be a solution for SMEs that are neither able to provide adequate collateral nor have a suitable credit rating. Various pro-grams related to microcredit implemented by banks are here presented as well as programs implemented by non-financial organizations. However, the main conclusion is that Serbia in comparison to other transitional countries is poorly developed in creating new business activities and that a share related to self-employment in overall employment is still under-developed.

Key words: microcredit, unemployment rate, entrepreneurship, innovations, economic growth.

, - . , Grameen , . , 2006. . 1 , -. , . . -

1

109

( ) . , - - . , . 2007. 2012. , . , , - . , , - .

, , , (Birthe ., 2012). , , - . , . , - ( ., 2011). , - , - . , , , , (, , , , ) - .2 , - ( , ),

2 -: 0% , 2% - , 15% , 30% 100 .

110

:

.

(2010) , - . , 2005. , - . - . , . - 2007. -, . ( -), . , 2007. - , . , 2010. - - . - 2007. 2010. .

, 2020 - , , (European Commission, 2010). e e e e (European Commission, 2007). , 25.000 , ,

111

(European Commission, 2007). - -, (European Commission 2003). Eurostata (2011) (99,8%) - (SME), 92% . . , - . PIIGS , , , , , , j (Eurostat, 2011).

, - - (European Commission, 2007). , , - , .

2008 2010

E

+%

+%

,!

-

(*

'

/

&

:

:

:*

%

;