Transcript Document

Science, Technology and Innovation indicators:
benchmarking R&D policies
•
•
•
•
•
•
An historical perspective
The “Frascati Manual” and the “Oslo Manual”
S&T indicators
Innovation indicators
Some evidence from innovation surveys
Concluding remarks
C&T in OCDE: 63-95
14
Staff in R&D / 1000 inhabitants
1963
US
FR
12
DE
NL
10
BE
FR
NL
UE
1995
UK
JP
UK
UE
8
US
IE
DE
6
IT
JP
BE
BE
GR
4
IE
IEPT
2
IT
GR
% GNP applied in R&D
PT
0
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
S&T indicators:
evolving from basic indicatores...
Which effects to be considered???
• Output, impact, efficiency: output/input
... The need for: terms of reference
a model of analysis
• Other effects: how to consider the “context”??
• Time
• Scale: scale/intensity
• Structure
• Space
• .....
The exponential growth of S&T indicators at the international level
Decades
Main indicators used
50s and 60s
Re&D
70s
Re&D
Patents
Technological balance
of payments
80s
Re&D
Patents
Technological balance
of payments
High-tech products
and sectors
Bibliometrics
Human resources
90s
Re&D
Patents
Technological balance
of payments
High-tech products
and sectors
Bibliometrics
Human resources
Innovation surveys Innovation surveys
Innovations mentioned in
technical literature
Surveys of production
technologies
Government support to
industrial technology
Intangible investment
Indicators of information
and communication
technologies
Input-Output matrixes *
Productivity *
Venture capital *
Mergers and acquisitions *
* Indicators mutuated from economic analysis.
Definition of research and development
(Frascati Manual)
• R&D is defined as creative work
undertaken on a systematic basis in
order to increase the stock of
knowledge including knowledge of
man, culture and society, and the use
of this stock of knowledge to devise
new applications.
The linear model
• Research-based
• Sequential
• Tecnocratic
Development of indicators
P eriod
1960's-1970 's
1980's-early
1990's
1990's - next
m illennium
M od el
L inear m odel
C hain-linked
m odel
S ystem s
approaches
C on cep tion
S im ple
C om plex
E xtrem ely
com plex
N u m b er of
in d icators
F ew
(R & D , patents,
TBP)
M any
(R & D , patents,
bibliom etrics,
innovation, high
tech products,
hum an
resources)
T oo m any
(com binations
of existing and
possibly new
indicators,
quantitative/
qualitative)
“The Chain Link Model”
“Communities
of practice”
Research
Knowledge
Technology platforms
Potential
Invention/
Detailed design Re-design
Markets analytical design
& Test
& Production
Distribution
& market
BUS
Kline & Rosenberg (1986)
Technological innovation
(Oslo Manual)
• Technological innovations comprise
new products and processes and
significant technological changes of
products, services and processes.
• An innovation has been implemented if
it has been introduced on the market
(product and service innovation) or
used within a production process
(process innovation).
Technological innovation
(Oslo Manual)
• Innovations involve a series of
scientific, technological, organisational,
financial and commercial activities.
• The product or process should be new
(or rignificantly improved) to the firm (it
does not necessarily have to be new to
the relevant market)
Science and technology indicators
•
•
•
•
•
•
Human resources for S&T
R&D
Patents
Bibliometrics
Technological balance of payments
Trade in high-tech products
Permilagem de investigadores (ETI) pela população
activa, para o último ano disponível
Finlândia
Japão
Suécia
EUA
Bélgica
Dinamarca
Alemanha
França
Reino Unido
Europa 15
Holanda
Irlanda
Áustria
Espanha
Portugal
Grécia
Itália
13.08
9.26
9.10
8.08
6.95
6.46
6.45
6.20
5.49
5.40
5.15
5.05
4.88
4.56
3.31
3.30
2.80
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
Notas: FIN, JP, E, P: 2000; Uk, A: 1998; EUA: 1997; Todos os outros países: 1999. Média da UE não inclui o Luxemburgo
Fonte: European Commission, Key Figures 2002 – Science, Technology and Innovation
Novos doutorados em ciência e tecnologia por
permilagem de população entre os 25 e os 34 anos,
para o último ano disponível
Suécia
Finlândia
Alemanha
França
Reino Unido
Bélgica
Áustria
Europa 15
Irlanda
Dinamarca
EUA
Espanha
Holanda
Portugal
Japão
Grécia
Itália
0.00
1.24
1.09
0.81
0.76
0.68
0.60
0.59
0.56
0.50
0.49
0.48
0.36
0.34
0.26
0.24
0.19
0.16
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
Notas: I, UE: 1999; todos os outros países referem-se a 2000; A média da UE não inclui o
Luxemburgo; Os dados da Espanha são provisionais.
Fonte: European Commission, Key Figures 2002 – Science, Technology and Innovation
The effect of scale:
Scale vs Intensity in R&D
Scale vs Intensity in R&D
(OECD, 2000)
0 ,0 4
Sweden
0 ,0 3 5
Inte ns ity - S ha r e of G D P s pe nt on R & D
0 ,0 3
Japan
F in la n d
US
F ra n c e
0 ,0 2 5
th e N e th e rla n d s
G e rm a n y
D e n m a rk
0 ,0 2
UK
B e lg iu m
Ire la n d
0 ,0 1 5
A u s tria
Ita ly
0 ,0 1
P o rtu g a l
S p a in
0 ,0 0 5
G re e c e
0
100
1000
10000
100000
S c a le - T o ta l E x p e n d itu re in R & D ($ P P P ; lo g a rith m ic s c a le )
1000000
The effect of time:
Dynamic effects to complement static data
Crescimento médio anual dos investigadores pela
população activa, para o último ano disponível
Grécia
Finlândia
Irlanda
Espanha
Portugal
Bélgica
EUA
Holanda
Suécia
Dinamarca
Europa 15
Reino Unido
Japão
Alemanha
França
Itália
-2.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
Notas: FIN, JP, E, P: 2000; UK, A: 1998; EUA: 1997; Todos os outros países: 1999. Média da UE não inclui o Luxemburgo e a Áustria.
Fonte: European Commission, Key Figures 2002 – Science, Technology and Innovation
Crescimento de Novos doutorados por permilagem de
população, entre os 25 e os 34 anos, entre 1999 e 2000
9.76
9.09
8.52
5.24
4.29
3.93
2.75
2.64
2.45
1.54
1.05
0.74
0.26
0.07
-2.76
-4.80
-5.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
13.98
Portugal
Finlândia
Grécia
Espanha
Reino Unido
Suécia
Bélgica
Alemanha
Itália
Áustria
Europa 15
França
Japão
Dinamarca
EUA
Irlanda
Holanda
15.00
Notas: I, UE: 1998-1999. A média da UE não inclui o Luxemburgo
Fonte: European Commission, Key Figures 2002 – Science, Technology and Innovation
GERD: 1995 - 1999
Finlândia
13.5
Grécia
Portugal
12.0
9.9
Irlanda
8.2
Espanha
6.9
Bélgica
Dinamarca
6.0
5.9
5.7
EUA
Áustria
5.6
Suécia
5.1
4.2
Holanda
Alemanha
3.8
Europa 15
3.4
Japão
2.8
Itália
Reino Unido
2.6
1.8
França
1.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
Notas: B, DK, EL, IRL, I, NL, S: 1995-1999; JP: 1996-2000; Todos os outros países e UE: 1995-2000.
A média da UE não inclui o Luxemburgo
Fonte: European Commission, Key Figures 2002 – Science, Technology and Innovation
The historical evidence:
intensity of R&D support in US
Conceição, Heitor and Oliveira(2001)
2 ,5 0 0 0
2 ,0 0 0 0
Private
1 ,5 0 0 0
1 ,0 0 0 0
Federal
0 ,5 0 0 0
F e d e ra l S u p p o rt fo r R & D a s a P e rc e n t o f G D P
N o n fe d e ra l S u p p o rt fo r R & D a s a P e rc e n t o f G D P
99
19
97
19
95
19
93
19
91
19
89
19
87
19
85
19
83
19
81
19
79
19
77
19
75
19
73
19
71
19
69
19
67
19
65
19
63
19
61
19
59
19
57
19
55
19
19
53
0 ,0 0 0 0
The historical evidence:
cumulative R&D support in US
Conceição, Heitor and Oliveira(2001)
70
60
Federal
50
40
Private
30
20
10
F e d e ra l S u p p o rt fo r R & D a s a P e rc e n t o f G D P
N o n fe d e ra l S u p p o rt fo r R & D a s a P e rc e n t o f G D P
98
19
96
19
94
19
92
19
90
19
88
19
86
19
84
19
82
19
80
19
78
19
76
19
74
19
72
19
70
19
68
19
66
19
64
19
62
19
60
19
58
19
56
19
19
54
0
Perspectives for “change”:
Public vs private R&D expenditures
0,1
France
Public R&D Expenditures per capita
FR
Netherlands
0,075
Germany
Denmark
Poland
Finland
Norway
D
US
Japan
JP
USA
Korea
Canada
UK
0,05
France
UK
UK
US
Netherlands
Canada
Germany
P97
Czech Rep
Finland
Denmark
Ireland
0,025
P95
ES
Japan
Norway
Sweden
Spain
Portugal
SE
Ireland
IR
Sweden
Belgium
New Zealand
Hungary
Spain
Portugal
P81
Mexico
Turkey
0
0
0,125
0,25
0,375
Private R&D Expenditures per capita
0,5
characterizing structure:
Public and private funding of R&D
BERD / GERD
U nited S tates
S w eden (1997)
Ireland (1997)
B elgium (1997)
K orea
S w itzerland (1996)
Japan
OECD
G erm any
F inland
U nited K ingdom
EU
F rance
C zech R epublic
S lovak R epublic
D enm ark
C anada
N orw ay (1997)
A ustria (1993)
N etherlands (1998)
Italy
S pain
Iceland
A ustralia (1998)
P oland
H ungary
T urkey (1997)
N ew Z ealand (1997)
M exico
G reece (1997)
P ortugal (1997)
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
B u sin ess E xp en d itu re o n R & D as a P ercen tag e o f th e T o tal E xp en d itu re o n R & D (1999)
80.00
With the exception of the less developed OECD countries, business expenditure on R&D accounts
for the majority of total expenditure, and has an overwhelming share (close or above ¾) in the most
developed countries
Share of R&D funding (OECD)
OECD, S&T Databases, Sept. 2001
B u s in e s s
100
Industry-dominated systems
Ire la n d
Japan
K o re a
0
S weden
B e lg iu m
S w itze rla n d
F in la n d
U n ite d S ta te s
G e rm a n y
U n ite d K in g d o m
D e n m a rk
F ra n c e
Canada
N e th e rla n d s
C ze c h R e p u b lic
N o rw a y
Ic e la n d
S p a in
S lo va k R e p u b lic
A u s tria
A u s tra lia
Ita ly
T u rk e y
H u n g a ry
P o la n d
Balanced Industry+ /government
systems
Balanced Industry/government+
systems
N e w Z e a la n d
G re e c e
M e xic o
P o rtu g a l
Government-dominated
systems
100
H ig h e r E d u c a tio n
0
100
G o v e rn m e n t
Share of R&D expenditure (OECD)
OECD, S&T Databases, Sept. 2001
B u s in e s s
100
Industry-dominated systems
Balanced industry/government
systems with universities being more
important performers than public
research institutions
U n ite d S ta te s
S weden
Japan
K o re a
Ire la n d
G e rm a n y
B e lg iu mF in la n d
U n ite d K in g d o m
S w itze rla n d
F ra n c e
D e n m a rk
C ze c h R e p u b lic
S lo va k R e p u b lic
C anada
A u s tria
0
S p a in
N o rw a y
N e th e rla n d s
Ita ly
0
Balanced industry/government
systems with public research
institutions being more important
Ic e la n d
A u s tra lia
H u n g a ry
P o la n d
T u rk e y
performers than universities
G re e c e
N e w Z e a la n d
M e xic o
P o rtu g a l
Government-dominated
systems
100
H ig h e r E d u c a tio n
100
0
P u b lic re s e a rc h in s titu tio n s
Share of R&D funding and expenditure
(OECD)
OECD, S&T Databases, Sept. 2001
100
Bu s in e s s
Pe r f o r m in g
USA
Irland
Fu n d in g
0
0
Netherland
sSpain
Hungary
Portugal
100 Hig h e r e d u cat io n
0
Go ve r n m e n t 100
Indus tr y dominated s y s tems
Balanc ed s y s tems ( univ er s ities )
Balanc ed s y s tems ( public labs )
Gov er nment dominated s y s tems
Variation of BERD: 1995-1999
Finlândia
Dinamarca
Portugal
Grécia
Irlanda
Espanha
EUA
Holanda
Suécia
Bélgica
Alemanha
Europa 15
França
Áustria
Japão
Reino Unido
Itália
0.00
17.36
12.69
11.92
10.52
9.30
9.29
8.40
6.24
5.94
5.66
5.44
4.81
3.81
3.55
2.43
1.99
0.98
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
18.00
Notas: JP:1996-2000; A, D, E, P, FIN, EUA: 1995-2000; Todos os outros países e UE:1995-1999
Fonte: European Commission, Key Figures 2002 – Science, Technology and Innovation
Comparative growth in public and total R&D expenditures
(average annual growth rates over 1995-2001, or nearest years available)
20
15
C h in a
T u rk e y
P u blic R & D E xp e nd itu re s
P o rtu g a l
10
N e w Z e a la n d
Me xic o
F in la n d
G re e c e
C ze c h R e p u b lic
Ic e la n d
Ire la n d
P o la n d
K o re a
Sw eden
N o rw a y
S p a in
H u n g a ry
B e lg iu m
Ita ly
Is ra e l
T o ta l O ECD
Au s tra lia
U n ite d S ta te s
Canada
G e rm a n y
Eu r o p e a n Un io n
N e th e rla n d s D e n m a rk
5
0
U n ite d K in g d o m
F ra n c e
Ja p a n
-5
S lo va k R e p u b lic
-1 0
-1 0
-5
0
5
T o ta l R& D Ex p e n d itu r e s
10
15
20
Growth of Public and Private expenditure on R&D
OECD, S&T databases, October 2001
30
25
P u b lic R & D e x p e n d it u r e s
20
15
P o r tu g a l
G re e c e
Tu rke y
10
C z e c h R e p u b li c
New
Z e a la n d
F i n la n d
Po la n d
Korea
5
A u s tr a l ia
N orw a y
Ita l y
T o ta l O EC D
Eu r o p e a n U n io n
0
B e l g iu m
Hungary
Sw ed en
S p a in
Canada
U n it e d S ta t e s
N e t h e r la n d s
Germ any
M e x ic o
Ic e l a n d
Ir e l a n d
D e n m a rk
U n i te d K i n g d o m
F ra n c e
Ja p a n
-5
S l o v a k R e p u b li c
-1 0
-1 0
-5
0
5
10
1 5
P r i v a t e R & D e x p e n d it u r e s
20
25
3 0
Percentagem de PMEs que executam I&D no sector privado
com financiamento público, no último ano disponível
70.6
Grécia
60.1
Portugal
57.8
Irlanda
56.9
Finlândia
53.5
Espanha
48.6
Dinamarca
29.8
Holanda
28.6
Áustria
24.5
Itália
15.1
Europa 15
11.4
Alemanha
10.2
Reino Unido
EUA
9.0
França
9.0
Japão
8.8
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
Notas: JP, I, E, FIN, P:2000; A: 1998; IRL: 1997; Todos os outros países e UE: 1999; A média Europeia não inclui a Bélgica,
Luxemburgo e Suécia; Os dados da Irlanda só se referem a PMEs independentes.
Fonte: European Commission, Key Figures 2002 – Science, Technology and Innovation
Crescimento médio anual da percentagem de PMEs que executam I&D no
sector privado com financiamento público, de 1995 até ao último ano disponível
24.7
13.7
12.2
11.1
3.5
3.2
-0.6
-0.9
-2.1
-3.1
-8.8
-9.3
-15.0 -10.0 -5.0
0.0
5.0
31.9 Dinamarca
30.5 Portugal
Itália
Finlândia
EUA
Irlanda
Europa 15
Japão
Holanda
França
Espanha
Alemanha
Reino Unido
Grécia
10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
Notas: JP, I, Fin, P: 1995-2000;E:1999-2000; IRL:1995-1997; D, DK, UE, EUA:1997-1999; Todos os outros países:1995-1999; A
média da UE não inclui a Bélgica, Espanha, Irlanda, Luxemburgo, Áustria e Suécia.
Fonte: European Commission, Key Figures 2002 – Science, Technology and Innovation
Characterizing efficiency:
• Scientific Production
• Technological capacity
• ...
Absolute R&D Expenditures and Scientific Production (1997).
OECD (2000)
N um b er of A rticles P ublished in 1995 (logarithm ic scale)
1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0
US
1 0 0 ,0 0 0
UK
Japan
G e rm a n y
F ra n c e
Ita ly
T h e N e th e rla n d s
1 0 ,0 0 0
S p a in
Sweden
D e n m a rk
B e lg iu m
F in la n d
A u s tria
G re e c e
1 ,0 0 0
Ire la n d
P o rtu g a l
100
1 0 0 .0 0
1 ,0 0 0 .0 0
1 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0
1 0 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0
T o ta l E x p e n d itu re in R & D ($ P P P ; lo g a rith m ic s c a le )
1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0
Technological Capacity
( PATENTS / GDP) 1996
> 200
100 - 200
50 - 100
15 - 50
< 15
Média UE = 100
Source: OST, 1998
Scientific Capacity
(PUBLICATIONS / GNP) 1996
> 200
100 - 200
50 - 100
15 - 50
< 15
Média UE = 100
Source: OST, 1998
Technological Capacity
P ublications/non-B E R D
(m illion S P P , 1987 prices)
12
IRL
10
8
UK DK
GR
SE
6
ES
4
BE
FR
FI
EU
A
IT
US
NL
DE
JP
2 PT
0
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
Patents/R&D spending by companies (million PPS, 1987 prices)
source: Caracostas & Muldur (1998)
0.60
Scientific “Productivity” and interinstitutional cooperation
EC Benchmark of S&T Policies, September 2001
Innovation :
What do we know?
What would we like to know?
The Imperative: improve productivity and efficiency,
not the extension with which resources are used
20
P ro d u tivid a d e h o rá ria m e n o r q u e a m é d ia E U -1 5
M a is h o ra s d e tra b a lh o d o q u e a m é d ia E U -1 5
P ro d u tivid a d e h o rá ria m a io r q u e a m é d ia E U -1 5
M a is h o ra s d e tra b a lh o d o q u e a m é d ia E U -1 5
A m é ric a d o N o rte 1 5
Irla n d a
Espanha
10
A u s trá lia
G ré c ia
Japão
E feito d o N ú m ero d e H o ras d e T rab alh o
EUA
G7
C anadá
H u n g ria
Is lâ n d ia
N o v a Z e lâ n d ia
5
P o rtu g a l
F in lâ n d ia
L u x e m b u rg o
Itá lia
E u ro A re a
0
-5 0
-4 0
-3 0
-2 0
-1 0
0
R e in o U n id o
S u é c ia
10
A le m a n h a
S u iç a
-5
20
30
40
50
F ra n ç a
D in a m a rc a
Á u s tria
-1 0
P ro d u tivid a d e h o rá ria m a io r q u e a m é d ia E U -1 5
M e n o s h o ra s d e tra b a lh o d o q u e a m é d ia E U -1 5
-1 5
P ro d u tivid a d e h o rá ria m e n o r q u e a m é d ia E U -1 5
M e n o s h o ra s d e tra b a lh o d o q u e a m é d ia E U -1 5
H o la n d a
N o ru e g a
-2 0
D ife re n ç a d a P ro d u tiv id a d e H o rá ria F a c e à M é d ia C o m u n itá ria
Contributions of Hourly Productivity and of Hours Worked to the “Gap” in GDP per Capita (1998)
How to increase productivity?
There is a need to enhance innovation.
Why? Because Portugal is already competitive in low value-added activities.
S u iç a
A u s trá lia
EUA
Irla n d a
Japão
A le m a n h a
S u é c ia
D in a m a rc a
A u s tria
Canada
R e in o U n id o
F ra n ç a
H o la n d a
A lto V a lo r
N o va Z e lâ n d ia
M é d io V a lo r
C o re ia
B a ix o V a lo r
Itá lia
F in lâ n d ia
B é lg ic a /L u xe m b u rg o
N o ru e g a
M é xic o
H u n g ria
P o rtu g a l
Espanha
G ré c ia
T u rq u ia
R e p ú b lic a C h e c a
P o ló n ia
OCDE
EU
0%
20%
40%
60%
P e rc e n ta g e m d a s E x p o rta ç õ e s p a ra a U n iã o E u ro p e ia (1 9 9 6 )
80%
100%
Proportion of Exports According to the Price/Quality Ratio (Value) of Exported Goods (EUROSTAT)
What is lacking to enhance productivity?
a) R&D investment, namely by firms
45
(E x portaç ões em A lta T ec nologia/T otal de E x portaç ões )
E sp ecializ ação d as E xp o rtaçõ es em S ecto res d e A lta T ecn o lo g ia
50
Irla n d a
40
35
2
R = 0 .7
(e x c e p tu a n d o Irla n d a e M é x ic o )
30
EUA
25
R e in o U n id o
C o re ia
20
M é xic o
Japão
S u é c ia
H o la n d a
F ra n ç a
S u iç a
15
F in lâ n d ia
D in a m a rc a
10
Espanha
P o rtu g a l
5
G ré c ia
H u n g ria
A le m a n h a
A u s trá lia
Canada
B é lg ic a
Itá lia
R e p ú b lic a C h e c a
P o ló n ia
N o va Z e lâ n d ia
N o ru e g a
T u rq u ia
0
0
0 .5
1
1 .5
2
2 .5
3
3 .5
4
In te n s id a d e e m I& D n a In d ú s tria
(D e s p e s a e m I& D n a In d ú s tria /P ro d u ç ã o In d u s tria l)
High Tech Exports and R&D Intensity in Firms (OCDE,2002)
What is lacking to enhance productivity?
b) expenditure on innovation
3 .8 %
S u é c ia
7 .0 %
2 .4 %
F in lâ n d ia
4 .3 %
3 .0 %
A le m a n h a
4 .1 %
1 .3 %
F ra n ç a
3 .9 %
1 .6 %
H o la n d a
3 .8 %
3 .0 %
Á u s tria
3 .5 %
2 .1 %
Irla n d a
3 .3 %
4 .0 %
R e in o U n id o
3 .2 %
2 .5 %
2 .7 %
N o ru e g a
1 .2 %
B é lg ic a
2 .2 %
Espanha
P o rtu g a l
1 .8 %
0 .7 %
1 .6 %
In d ú s tria
S e rviç o s
Firm Revenues Invested in Activities Oriented towards Innovation
What is lacking to enhance productivity?
c) Portugal also lacks technical skills and competencies
US
Czech Republic
Slovakia
UK
Norway
Sweden
Denmark
Poland
Germany
Finland
Austria
Hungary
France
Netherlands
Ireland
Belgium
Luxemburg
Greece
Italy
Spain
Turkey
Portugal
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Highest Level of Education Attained: Population of 25-64 Years Old (2001)
(Source: OECD, Education at a Glance 2002)
Upper Secondary Education
Terciary Education
80
90
What is lacking to enhance productivity?
d) Portugal is behind in organizational, as much as in
technological, innovation
A le m a n h a
D in a m a rc a
Espanha
F ra n ç a
H o la n d a
Irla n d a
Itá lia
P o rtu g a l
R e in o U n id o
S u é c ia
M é d ia (n ã o p o n d e ra d a )
R o ta ç ã o d o s
T ra b a lh a d o re s
O rg a n iza ç ã o d o
T ra b a lh o e m
E q u ip a s
M a io r E n vo lvim e n to
d o s T ra b a lh a d o re s
m e n o s Q u a lific a d o s
H o rizo n ta liza ç ã o
d a s E s tru tu ra d e
G e s tã o
7
28
14
6
9
10
13
20
40
34
30
9
27
28
19
10
33
44
46
32
24
30
42
21
47
23
10
9
13
38
15
22
33
29
27
9
48
60
33
3
45
46
29
Adoption of Flexible Management Practices
OCDE (1999). Employment Outlook
What is lacking to enhance productivity?
Market Regulation and Employment Protection
Nicoletti, Scarpetta & Boylaud; OECD (2000)
What does Portugal have going for it?
a) Portugal is now a dual country: excellence coexists with poor performance
S u é c ia
F in lâ n d ia
D in a m a rc a
S u é c ia
R e p ú b lic a C h e c a
H o la n d a
N o ru e g a
P o rtu g a l
A le m a n h a
A le m a n h a
H o la n d a
N o ru e g a
F in lâ n d ia
B é lg ic a
B é lg ic a
D in a m a rc a
C anadá
Q u a n tita tiva
A u s trá lia
L e itu ra
E s c rita
EUA
R e p ú b lic a C h e c a
C anadá
A u s trá lia
N o va Z e lâ n d ia
R e in o U n id o
H u n g ria
N o va Z e lâ n d ia
R e in o U n id o
Irla n d a
Irla n d a
E s lo vé n ia
E s lo vé n ia
EUA
P o ló n ia
P o ló n ia
P o rtu g a l
H u n g ria
C h ile
C h ile
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
R e s u lta d o s M é d io s , P o p u la ç ã o e n tre 1 6 e 6 5 A n o s , 1 9 9 4 -1 9 9 8 (E s c a la d e 0 a 5 0 0 )
Literacy: Results for the Entire
Population
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
R e s u lta d o s M é d io s , P o p u la ç ã o e n tre 2 0 e 2 5 A n o s c o m E d u c a ç ã o S e c u n d á ria A v a n ç a d a C o n c lu íd a , 1 9 9 2 -1 9 9 8 (E s c a la d e 0 a 5 0 0 )
Written Literacy: Results for
Population between 20 and 25
Years with Advanced High
School Diplomas
What does Portugal have going for it?
b) Portugal has been growing fast, but less so than other
“catching-up” countries
C o re ia
25
20
(1990-1995)
T axa M éd ia d e C rescim en to A n u al d e A rtig o s C ien tífico s P u b licad o s
30
T u rq u ia
15
M é x ic o
Espanha
10
P o rtu g a l
G ré c ia
Itá lia
F in lâ n d ia
A u s tria A le m a n h a Irla n d aB é lg ic a
F ra n ç a E U H o la n d a
D in a m a rc a
N o ru e g a
Japão
A u s trá lia
S u é c ia
OCDE
S u iç a
5
P o ló n ia
H u n g ria
R e in o U n id o
C anada
EUA
N o va Z e lâ n d ia
0
-1 0
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
T a x a M é d ia d e C re s c im e n to A n u a l d e P a te n te s S u b m e tid a s a o E P O (1 9 9 0 -1 9 9 6 )
Variation in the Number of Patents and Number of Published Scientific Articles
What does Portugal have going for it?
c) Portugal
has a new wealth in incoming people
F in lâ n d ia
A u s tria
Itá lia
P o rtu g a l
D in a m a rc a
Espanha
Japão
L u x e m b u rg o
S u iç a
Irla n d a
EUA
A le m a n h a
R e in o U n id o
N o ru e g a
S u é c ia
C anada
H o la n d a
B é lg ic a
A u s tra lia
F ra n ç a
OCDE
EU
-5 0 .0 %
0 .0 %
5 0 .0 %
1 0 0 .0 %
1 5 0 .0 %
2 0 0 .0 %
2 5 0 .0 %
3 0 0 .0 %
3 5 0 .0 %
C re s c im e n to d a P ro p o rç ã o d a P o p u la ç ã o E s tra n g e ira (1 9 8 8 -1 9 9 8 )
Growth in the Population of Each Country with Foreign Origin (1988-1998),
OECD(2000)
Average Annual Real Value Added Growth
of Knowledge Based Industries (1985-share year)
Average Annual Real Value Added Growth of
knowledge Based Industries
OECD(2000)
14
Korea
12
10
8
Portugal**
6
UK*
Denmark
4
Spain***
Japan
Mexico
Austria
NL* Canada
Greece*
US
Italy Belgium France
Sweden***
Germany
2
Norway
Denmark
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Share in Business Sector Value Added of Knowledge Based Industries
(share year 1996 except: *1995;**1993; ***1994)
60
Balanço tecnológico de pagamentos como
percentagem do PIB, para o ano mais recente
Bélgica
Áustria
Holanda
Alemanha
EUA
Reino Unido
Portugal
Japão
França
Itália
Finlândia
Espanha
2.47
1.29
1.28
0.70
0.39
0.37
0.27
0.21
0.19
0.11
0.08
0.03
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
Notas: E, FIN: 1998; F, EUA:1999; Todos os outros países: 2000.
Fonte: European Commission, Key Figures 2002 – Science, Technology and Innovation
Crescimento médio anual das receitas da balança de
pagamentos em tecnologia para os anos mais recentes
38.00
29.20
15.80
14.40
13.70
13.00
12.50
11.90
10.70
6.80
2.80
-0.47
-5.00
5.00
15.00
25.00
35.00
Espanha
Finlândia
Bélgica
Japão
Portugal
Holanda
Áustria
Alemanha
França
Reino Unido
EUA
Itália
45.00
Notas: Valores calculados em PPS a preços de 1995; E, FIN: 1995-1998; EUA, F: 1995-1999; P, UK: 1996-2000; Todos os outros
países: 1995-2000
In the way of a summary.......
Portugal needs to jump from a “catching-up” model of
economic growth and development, to a model of
“forging-ahead” by exploring creativity and
ingeniousness by developing and diffusing innovation.
There may be agreement on some general and generic
areas for investment (education, science and
technology, infrastructures, “social capital” defined in a
broad way). But the design and implementation of
specific policies meets two challenges:
– The lack of understanding of the barriers and opportunities
– A lack of qualified people able to understand and interpret
the developmental shortcomings of the country and of
designing and implementing, at the firm level or in the public
sector, the measures that could overcome these
shortcomings.
Main indicators from innovation surveys
• Number of innovating firms
–by sector
–by firm size
• Cost of innovation
• Percentage of sales due to new
products
The Community Innovation Survey, CIS
The Community Innovation Survey (CIS)
The harmonised EU/OECD questionnaire
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
General information about the firm
Type of innovation (product, process)
Sources of information for innovation
Objectives of innovation
Factors hampering innovation
Cost of innovation
Impact of innovation
The Third Community innovation Survey: CIS 3
Application to Portugal
Survey Target Population
All Manufacturing and Service firms with more than 10 employees
Survey Sample
•
Initial Sample: 4727 firms stratified by firm size and sector
(INE–1999 Data)
•
Corrected sample: 4127 firms
Sectors Surveyed
•
Mining and Quarrying, all Manufacturing, Utilities, Wholesale
Trade and a selection of industries in the Service Sector
Innovation Defined as: Market introduction of a product (Good or Service)
new or significantly improved, or the introduction of new or significantly
improved processes, based on new technological developments, new
combinations of existing technologies or on the use of other type of knowledge
acquired.
The Third Community innovation Survey
Questionnaire
•
Harmonized questionnaire (the same for Services and Manufacturing and
other industries)
•
Questions regarding:
General Information
Basic Economic Information
Product and Process Innovation
Patents and Other Protection Methods
Companies Characteristics
Innovation Extension
Innovation Activities and Expenditure
Intramural R & D
Other Strategic and Organizational Important Changes
Effects of Innovation
Public Funding
Innovation Co-operation
Sources of Information for Innovation
Hampered Innovation Activity
Companies Options
Systemic Characteristics
Convergence
Leading the Convergence towards the EU Mean
100%
80%
Proportion of
Service
Innovating
Enterprises
Ireland
60%
Austria
(2)
(1)
Luxemburg
UK
40%
France
Portugal
CIS II
CIS III
(Preliminary)
Netherlands
Sweden
Italy
Norway
Finland
20%
Germany
Belgium
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Proportion of Manufacturing Innovating Enterprises
(1)
(2)
Note:
For comparison with the data of 1995-1997 some Sub sectors (NACE 63, 73, 74.3 e 64
except 64.2) and the manufacturing companies in between 10 and 20 employees which
were part of the CIS 3 survey are not considered
Includes the results not considered in (1).
Final disaggregated and comparable results are not yet available for the other
participants in the exercise.
Convergence: Input vs Output
Manufacturing Sector
80%
Porportion of Innovative Enterprises
Ireland
Germany
Austria
Netherlands
60%
UK
Sweden
Norway
France
CIS II
40%
CIS III
(Preliminary)
Finland
Belgium
Portugal
20%
0%
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
Expenditure in Innovating Activities as Share of Turnover
Purely quantitative vs. qualitative convergence
Questions to be raised:
Do results indicate latecomer growth?
Do qualitative weaknesses remain?
Or
Is there evidence of qualitative
changes as well?
Proportion of Innovating Enterprises (%)
Evidence Supporting Qualitative Change
ME’s Catching Up
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1995-1997
1998-2000
(1)
1998-2000
(2)
1995-1997
Manufacturing
Small
1998-2000
(1)
1998-2000
(2)
1995-1997
Services
Medium
Large
Manufaturing Total
1998-2000
(1)
1998-2000
(2)
National (3)
Services Total
National Total
H
H ig
ighh aanndd Me
Meddiu
ium
m -H
-H ig
ighh
Me
Meddiu
ium
m -L
-Loow
w
Te xtile s a n d
L e a th e r
and
P u b lish in g
B e ve ra g e s
W o o d , P u lp
p ro d u cts;
R e cyclin g
Fo o d
N EC and
M e ta llic
M a n u fa ctu rin g
O th e r N o n -
Fa b rica te d
Rubber and
E q u ip m e n t
B a sic M e ta ls
and
E le ctrica l a n d
O p tica l
Tra n sp o rt
E q u ip m e n t
E q u ip m e n t
and
M a ch in e ry
C h e m ica ls
C o ke a n d
P ro p o rtio n o f In n o va tin g E n te rp rise s (% )
Evidence Supporting Qualitative Change
Innovation pervades the economy
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Low
Te
ch
ica
cto
(C
IS
III)
Tech
chnnnooololo
logggica
ical lS
l SSeeecto
ctorsrs
rs(E
(C
ISIS
II)II)
Te
VC
Note: Less confined to the Technologically advanced sectors
Evidence Supporting Qualitative Change
Shift of innovation expenditure toward intangibles: services sector
Ac quis ition of Mac hinery
and E quipm ent
D es ign, T raining and
(E x p e n d itu re s )
Marketing
Intram ural R & D
E xtram ural R & D
Ac quis ition of other
E xternal K now ledge
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
70%
80%
P ro p o rtio n o f To ta l In n o va tio n E xp e n d itu re s in 2 0 0 0 (% )
M a nufa cturing
1 9 9 8 -2 0 0 0
1 9 9 5 -1 9 9 7
Ac quis ition of Mac hinery
and E quipm ent
(E x p e n d itu re s )
D es ign, T raining and
Marketing
Intram ural R & D
E xtram ural R & D
Ac quis ition of other
E xternal K now ledge
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
P ro p o rtio n o f th e To ta l In n o va tio n E xp e n d itu re (% )
S e rvice s
1 9 9 8 -2 0 0 0
1 9 9 5 -1 9 9 7
However, weak
and ambiguous in
the
manufacturing
firms - decrease
in marketing &
training, rise in
R&D…
Evidence Supporting Qualitative Change
… consistent with the rise of BERD since 1997, still quite low by EU standards…
Bu s in e s s Ex p e n d itu r e in R& D a n d a ve r a g e g r o w th
60000
30%
50000
25%
20%
40000
15%
30000
10%
20000
5%
10000
0%
0
-5 %
1992
1995
1997
1999
2001
B E R D a t c o n s ta n t 1 9 9 5 p ric e s
An n u a l g ro w th ra te s
(Source: R&D Survey, IPCTN, 2002)
Gro w th ra te
M illio n P TE
r a te s , 1 9 9 2 -2 0 0 1
Manu fac tu ring
N on -Inn ovat ors
S ervi ce s
I nno vato rs
S tru ct u re s
O rg a n iz a ti o n a l
C h ang ed
S tra t e g i e s
N e w C o rp o ra te
A e s th e ti cs ' C h a n g e
S ig n ifi ca n t
Te ch n iq u e s
Ma nag em en t
A d va n c e d
Co n c e p ts /S tra te g ie s
M a rk e t in g
E n t e rp ris e 's
C h a n g in g
S t ru c tu re s
O rg a n iz a t io n a l
C han ged
S tra te g ie s
N e w C o rp o ra t e
A e st h e t ic s' C h a n g e
S ig n if ic a n t
Te ch n i q u e s
Ma na gem en t
A dv anc ed
C o n c e p ts /S t ra te g ie s
M a rke tin g
E n te r p ris e 's
C ha ngi ng
P r o p o rtio n o f E n te rp ri se s (% )
Evidence Supporting Qualitative Change
… and with the observed correlation between technological and other innovations
70 .0
60 .0
50 .0
40 .0
30 .0
20 .0
10 .0
-
Evidence Supporting persistent structural
weaknesses
Industrial structure skewed to very small and small enterprises...
CIS III popula tion by s iz e
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
S m a ll
0%
Me d iu m
Ma n u fa c tu re
S e rvic e s
All
L a rg e
Evidence Supporting persistent structural
weaknesses
… which are much less prone to innovate…
P ro p o rtio n o f In n o v a tin g E n te rp ris e s (% )
C IS III
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Ma n u fa ctu rin g
1 0 to 1 9
S e rvice s
2 0 to 4 9
5 0 to 9 9
1 0 0 to 2 4 9
N a tio n a l
2 5 0 to 4 9 9
Mo re th a n 5 0 0 e m p lo ye e s
Evidence Supporting persistent structural
weaknesses
… and to middle-low and low technology sectors…
CIS III population by Technological Intensity
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
High and
Medium-High
Technologies
Medium-Low
Technologies
Low
Technologies
Evidence Supporting persistent structural
weaknesses
Proportion of Innovative Enterprises (%)
… also less innovative
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Small
Medium
Large
Enterprise Dimension
Low
Medium-Low
High and Medium-High Technological Sectors
Evidence Supporting persistent structural
weaknesses
Limited market scope
M a in m a r k e t s c ope of innova tive e nte r pr is e s
100%
80%
60%
In te rn a tio n a l
40%
N a tio n a l
L o ca l
20%
0%
Ma n u fa ctu re
S e rvice s
To ta l
• The restriction of most firms' targets to the national and local markets sets
lower innovative challenges;
• It also accounts for the unusually high percentage of products "new to the
market“, especially of services
Evidence Supporting persistent structural
weaknesses
Patent Applications
30.0
1,400
20.0
1,200
At least one Informal Method
200
-
Manufacturing
Services
Innovators
Innovators
National
400
NonInnovators
At least one Formal Method
NonInnovators
Innovators
Services
600
Innovators
Manufacturing
NonInnovators
Innovators
0.0
800
NonInnovators
5.0
Innovators
10.0
1,000
NonInnovators
15.0
Number of Patent Applications
25.0
NonInnovators
Proportion of Enterprises Protecting Innovations (%)
Protection Methods
National
• Protection of innovation, though mainly developed in house and new to the market,
relies heavily on informal procedures (secrecy, complexity of design, time-to-market)
• This also helps to explain the persistence of a low use of formal IPR (patents,
registration of design patterns, copyright): The only exception is trademarks.
Evidence Supporting persistent structural
weaknesses
The relatively low academic qualification of the labor force persists,
especially in the manufacturing sector
Workforce with tertiary education
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Manufacture
Services
Non-innovative
Total
Innovative
This is all the more important as there is a significant difference in
qualification between innovative and non-innovative firms
CIS III
0
CIS II
CIS II EU Average
Customer
Responsiveness
Regulations and
Standards
Information on
Markets
Economic Risks
Information on
Technology
Sources of
Finance
Innovation Costs
Organisational
Rigidities
Qualified
Personnel
Proportion of Enterprises (%)
Evidence Supporting persistent structural
weaknesses
As in CIS II, firms' perception of the obstacles hindering innovation
contrasts with that of EU
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
Evidence Supporting persistent structural
weaknesses
• Firms overemphasize obstacles beyond their control
(finance, costs, risk) and underemphasize those they
can influence.
• Firms tend not to consider, and even less than in
CIS II, organizational rigidities and lack of qualified
personnel as barriers.
• But both qualification of personnel and organizational
change are in fact associated to innovative firms, and
Portugal has comparatively under-qualified workforce
Innovation: What do we know?
•
The innovative performance of Portuguese firms has
improved over the second half of the 1990s, as far as one can
learn from self-reported indicators.
•
The enhancement in innovative performance has been
accompanied by limited, but significant, structural changes –
that is, the improvement in performance goes beyond
catching-up dynamics.
• Important structural weaknesses remain – both
•
associated with factors external to the firms and with firm
behavior, with firms attributing more importance to the former
when asked to indicate barriers to innovation
Technological innovation appears to be strongly correlated with
Organizational Innovation and Change - there may be
limited value-added and returns in looking at technological or
organizational innovation per se.
Innovation: What would we like to know?
•
What would the characterization of innovation in Portugal
would be like based, instead of self-reported indicators, on
“independent” assessments? More specifically, what should
we learn, compare, typify and seek to explain about
innovative processes as a whole?
•
What has the impact of policies been on the innovation
performance of firms? When has it been positive, negative,
redundant (that is, crowding-out what firms would do anyway
as a response to changing market dynamics).
•
What explains the correlation between technological and
other types of innovation? What are the organizational
adjustment and learning costs to innovation and how can
they be minimized? Which are the organizational
opportunities and how can they be optimized?
Innovation: What would we like to know?
•
What is generic, and what is specific, to the (still weak)
innovative performance of the Portuguese firms? From
what we would know to be generic, which lessons from
other contexts could we apply in Portugal? From the
specificity, what would constitute adequate responses?
•
How important is innovation to enhance the welfare of
Portugal? What alternatives to “becoming more
innovative” would be available to meet the challenge of
reaching the European average economic performance?