The European Innovation

1
The European Innovation Scoreboard and Trend
Chart Third plenary meeting of Innovative
Regions in Europe Stratford-upon-Avon, 17-18 June
2002
Peter Löwe, European Commission, DG
Enterprise peter.loewe_at_cec.eu.int
2
Structure of the presentation

• The evolution of EU innovation policy
• The European Innovation Scoreboard
• Lessons onIntelligent Benchmarking
• The Innovation Trend Chart
• Trends in regional innovation policy
• Future developments

3
Community Innovation Policy

• The milestones
• Green Paper on Innovation (12/95)
• Innovation Action Plan (11/96)
• 5th Framework Program (12/98)
• Lisbon Summit (3/00)
• Communication (9/00)
• Innovation Scoreboard (9/01)

4
The 2001 Innovation Scoreboard

• The European Innovation Scoreboard
• A request of the Lisbon Council (03/2000)
• Policy tool to compare national innovation
  performances
• Part of a much broader benchmarking exercise of
  the Commission
• Published yearly (next edition 12/2002)
• www.cordis.lu/trendchart/scoreboard

5
The Innovation Scoreboard

• Methodological approach
• Data must be relevant, recent, high quality,
  comparable at international level, and not cause
  additional burden
• Use of Eurostat data wherever possible
• Harmonisation with other scoreboards (Enterprise
  RTD and, in particular with the Structural
  indicators)

6
The 2001 Innovation Scoreboard

• 17 indicators in four areas
• Human Resources
• Creation of new knowledge
• Transmission and application of knowledge
• Innovation finance, outputs and markets

7
The 2001 Innovation Scoreboard

• Human Resources
• New SE graduates
• Population with tertiary education (R)
• Participation in life-long learning (R)
• Employment in medium-high and high-tech
  manufacturing (R)
• Employment in high-tech services (R)

8
The 2001 Innovation Scoreboard

• Knowledge creation
• Public RD expenditures (R)
• Business RD expenditures (R)
• EPO High-tech patent applications (R)
• USPTO High-tech patent applications

9
The 2001 Innovation Scoreboard

• Transmission and application of knowledge
• SMEs innovating in-house
• SMEs involved in innovation co-operation
• Innovation expenditures

10
The 2001 Innovation Scoreboard

• Innovation finance, -output and -markets
• High-tech venture capital
• Capital raised on parallel markets plus by new
  firms on main markets
• New-to-market products
• Home internet access
• Share of ICT markets
• Share of manufacturing value-added in high-tech
  sectors

11
(No Transcript)
12
(No Transcript)
13
The 2001 Innovation Scoreboard

• Some main lessons from the scoreboard
• The union as a whole lags behind US and JAP
• Most relevant gaps BERD and hi-tech patents
• But EU leaders are often also world leaders
• Private RD S FIN D
• Public RD FIN NL S
• SE graduates UK F IRL
• Home internet access NL S DK
• High potential for MS to learn from each other

14
The 2001 Innovation Scoreboard
Significant Differences between EU countries
Coefficient of variation among EU countries
High variation between Member States are shown in
red
15
The 2001 Innovation Scoreboard
The performances of Member States are diverging

Coefficient of variation among EU countries
Divergence between Member States are shown in red
16
The 2001 Innovation Scoreboard
Overall Country Trends by Innovation Index
17
Intelligent Benchmarking

• Just copying is not intelligent
• The PISA example
• Mobilisation through naming and shaming
• But policies are embedded in national context
• The transfer dilemma
• Benchmarking no substitute for debate
• Systems approach address weak points
• Path dependency set system specific goals

18
The Innovation Trend Chart

• Three complementary instruments
• European Innovation Scoreboard
• 17 indicators based on available statistics
• Analysis of Innovation Policy Measures
• Data base of 729 schemes on the web
• Country reports Trend reports
• Consultation of Policy Makers at the EU level
• Peer reviews on specific themes

19
The second pillar of the Trend Chart
Data base of 729 innovation policy schemes

• Italy 37
• Luxembourg 7
• Netherlands 41
• Portugal 29
• Spain 29
• Sweden 19
• UK 57
• Total EU 518

• Austria 43
• Belgium 49
• Denmark 15
• Finland 16
• France 27
• Germany 70
• Greece 51
• Ireland 28

20
The second pillar of the Trend Chart
Data base of 729 innovation policy schemes

• Slovak Republic 3
• Slovenia 8
• Total CC 174
• Associated Countries
• Iceland 3
• Israel 5
• Norway 29
• Total AC 37
• Grd Total 729

• Candidate Countries
• Cyprus 23
• Czech Republic 11
• Estonia 17
• Hungary 28
• Latvia 45
• Lithuania 14
• Poland 7
• Romania 18

21
The Innovation Trend Chart

• Trends in national/regional policy interaction
• PT and IRL Gradual decentralisation of funds and
  structures
• FR Need for better national/regional
  co-ordination acknowledged
• ES and BE decentralisation sometimes perceived
  as excessive
• DE Federal level launches competitive actions
  for regions

22
The third pillar of the Trend Chart

• Peer reviews of innovation policies
• Events should be focussed on themes that are both
  specific and of common interest
• To understand the specific conditions for which
  policies have been developed
• Extract relevant schemes from the database
• Countries identify their own good practices
• Explain how they measure progress
• Agree on target setting and follow-up

23
The Innovation Trend Chart

• Peer reviews of innovation policies in 2002
• Spin-offs from universities and PRIs
• Corporate tax and innovation
• Innovation policies in candidate countries
• Life-long learning and innovation
• Evaluations and trans-national policy learning
• See http//trendchart.cordis.lu/Benchmarking/inde
  x.cfm?

24
Future Developments

• Scoreboard 2002 Regional data available for
• Tertiary education
• Lifelong learning
• Medium-high and high-tech manuf. employment
• High-tech service employment
• Public RD
• Business RD
• High-tech patents

25
Future Developments

• Main lessons
• Commitment at highest level (trans-national
  policy learning needs resources)
• Dont overemphasise statistics understand what
  your indicators really measure
• Use complementary tools (statistics information
  gathering peer reviews)
• Concentrate on what is under your control
• Goals in the group can be different but there
  must be (measurable) goals