European commission : Innovation Union Scoreboard 2013

© European Union 2013

Description

Innovation Union Scoreboard 2013: the
first edition reflecting the impact of the
economic crisis

Sujets

• Innovation
• Commission européenne

Informations

• Publié par: Fil_Economie
• Publié le: 05 avril 2013
• Nombre de lectures: 264
• Langue: Français
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 14 Mo

Extrait

Innovation
Union
Scoreboard
2013
Enterprise
and IndustryLegal notice:
The views expressed in this report, as well as the information included in it, do not necessarily refect the
opinion or position of the European Commission and in no way commit the institution.
Europe Direct is a service to help you fnd 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.
This report was prepared by:
Hugo Hollanders and Nordine Es-Sadki from the
Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (UNU-MERIT).

With inputs from:
Stefano Tarantola, DG JRC G3 - Econometrics and applied statistics,
European Commission
Coordinated and guided by:
Bonifacio Garcia Porras, Head of Unit, and Tomasz Jerzyniak
Unit B3 – Innovation Policy for Growth
Directorate B – Sustainable Growth and EU 2020
Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry,
European Commission
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu)
Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.
Cover picture: Fotolia_4679488 © nfrPictures_L
© European Union, 2013
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Printed in Belgium
PRINTED ON CHLORINE FREE PAPER Innovation Union
Scoreboard 2013
The Innovation Union Scoreboard report and annexes and the indicators’ database are available at
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/facts-fgures-analysis/innovation-scoreboard/index_en.htmTABLE OF CONTENTS
4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
8 1 INTRODUCTION
10 2 INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD: FINDINGS FOR MEMBER STATES
10 2.1 Innovation performance
11 2.2 Growth performance 2008-2012
14 2.3 Performance changes since the launch of the Europe 2020 strategy
16 2.4 Innovation dimensions
19 3 COMPARISON OF EU27 INNOVATION PERFORMANCE WITH KEY
BENCHMARK COUNTRIES
19 3.1 A comparison with other European countries
20 3.2 A comparison with global competitors
28 4 COUNTRY PROFILES
62 5 INNOVATION AT THE REGIONAL LEVEL
62 5.1 Regional Innovation Scoreboard
64 5.2 Regional innovation and socio-economic performance
64 5.3 Regional research cooperation patterns of SMEs
65 6 TECHNICAL ANNEX
65 6.1 Calculating composite scores
66 6.2 Calculating growth rates
66 6.3 International benchmarking
67 ANNEX A Def nitions of indicators
70 ANNEX B Current performance
72 ANNEX C Growth performance
74 ANNEX D Country abbreviations
74 ANNEX E Summary Innovation Index (SII) time series
75 ANNEX F Performance scores per dimension
76 ANNEX G Gender dataInnovation Union Scoreboard 20134
Executive summary
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2013: the Croatia, Iceland, the Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland and Turkey. frst edition refecting the impact of the
It also includes comparisons between the EU27 economic crisis
and 10 global competitors. The overall ambition of
This year's edition ofers a unique opportunity to the Innovation Union Scoreboard is to inform policy
measure the frst efects of the economic crisis on discussions at national and EU level, by tracking
the research and innovation landscape in Europe. It progress in innovation performance within and outside
uses the most recent available data from Eurostat the EU over time. The Innovation Union Scoreboard is
and other internationally recognised sources with accompanied by the Regional Innovation Scoreboard
data referring to 2011 for 12 indicators and 2010 2012, the pilot European Public Sector Innovation
for 9 indicators and to less recent years for only 3 Scoreboard and analytical reports on among others
indicators. Six indicators are derived from the recently regional research cooperation patterns of European
published Community Innovation Survey 2010, which SMEs and the link between regional innovation and
investigated the innovation activity of the European socio-economic performance.
enterprises during the crisis years 2008-2010.
Member States analysed by eight inno-
The Innovation Union Scoreboard 2013 gives vation dimensions and 25 indicators…
a comparative assessment of the innovation
performance of the EU27 Member States and the The measurement framework used in the Innovation
relative strengths and weaknesses of their research Union Scoreboard distinguishes between 3 main
and innovation systems. It monitors innovation types of indicators and 8 innovation dimensions,
trends across the EU27 Member States, as well as capturing in total 25 diferent indicators (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Measurement framework of the Innovation Union ScoreboardInnovation Union Scoreboard 2013 5
The Enablers capture the main drivers of show a performance above or close to that of the
innovation performance external to the firm and EU27 average. These countries are the ‘Innova-
cover 3 innovation dimensions: Human resources, tion followers’.
Open, excellent and attractive research systems The perf ormance of Czech Republic, Greece, •
as well as Finance and support. Firm activities Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Portugal, Slovakia
capture the innovation efforts at the level of the and Spain is below that of the EU27 average.
firm, grouped in 3 innovation dimensions: Firm These countries are ‘Moderate innovators’.
investments, Linkages & entrepreneurship and The performance of Bulgaria, Latvia, Poland and •
Intellectual assets. Outputs cover the effects Romania is well belo
of firms’ innovation activities in 2 innovation ‘Modest innovators’.
dimensions: Innovators and Economic effects.
The overall ranking remains relatively
…and based on their average inno- stable with Sweden confrming its inno-
vation performance are put into four vation leadership…
performance groups.
The performance of Denmark, Finland, Germany Overall innovation performance ranking remains •
and Sweden is well above that of the EU27 relatively stable compared to previous IUS editions
average. These countries are the ‘Innovation with Sweden confrming its EU innovation leadership
leaders’. for the third time in a row. It is followed by Germany
Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, France, Ireland, that switched ranks with Denmark. Finland closes the •
Luxembourg, Netherlands, Slovenia and the UK all group of the most innovative Member States.
Figure 2: EU Member States’ innovation performance
Note: Average performance is measured using a composite indicator building on data for 24 indicators going from a lowest possible
performance of 0 to a maximum possible performance of 1. Average performance refects performance in 2010/2011 due to a lag in
data availability.
The performance of Innovation leaders is 20% or more above that of the EU27; of Innovation followers it is less than 20% above but more
than 10% below that of the EU27; of Moderate innovators it is less than 10% below but more than 50% below that of the EU27; and for
Modest innovators it is below 50% that of the EU27.Innovation Union Scoreboard 20136
… but several changes inside the perfor- While SMEs and commercialisation of
mance groups take place. innovation drive the innovation growth…
Though, there are several upward and downward When looking at individual indicators, the EU
movements inside each of the performance groups. innovation performance was driven most by
The Netherlands becomes the top innovation follower Innovating SMEs collaborating with others with
and Italy remains the top innovator in the moderate an annual average growth rate of 7.9% on
performance group. The bottom end of the ranking is that indicator. Other key drivers of innovation
closed by Romania and Bulgaria both being outpaced performance in Europe were License and patent
by Latvia that occupied the last position a year ago. revenues from abroad as well as Community
trademarks with growth rates of 6.1% and 5.2%
Two Member States changed the performance group: respectively. Open, excellent and attractive research
Lithuania advanced to the moderate innovators and systems was another driver where the indicators
Poland moved down becoming a modest innovator. for Non-EU doctorate students and International
It should be however noted, that in both cases the scientific publications grew at annual average rates
change in performance group was due to marginal of 4.1% and 4.0% respectively.
changes of the innovation performance.
… business and venture capital invest-
The EU is increasing its innovation per- ments are dropping the most.
formance with Estonia being the unques-
The economic impact has its harshest impact on
tionable innovation growth leader…
Non R&D innovation expenditures which dropped
Overall, the EU annual average growth rate of by 5.2% annually, followed by Venture capital
innovation performance reached 1.6% over the investments that were declining at an average rate of
analysed five-year period 2008-2012. 3.1% annually. The fnance and support to innovation
was cushioned by R&D expenditures in the public
While almost all Member States improved their sector which increased at an annual average rate
innovation performance, Estonia is by far the European of 3.2%. In general, a performance decl