Innovation Statistics (Nayagan B)

University of Athens
Centre of Financial Studies

(CFS)
Innovation Statistics
Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators:

Trends and Challenges in South Eastern Europe
27-31 March 2007, Skopje, organized by UNESCO
Prof. Lena Tsipouri

1
Innovation Statistics
1. Relevance, concepts and difficulties

in theory
2. A standardised approach: the CIS
3. Linking the CIS results to policy
making : achievements and criticism
4. The positive loop with academic
research
2
1. Innovation statistics:
Relevance, concepts and
difficulties in theory
3
The relevance
It is generally accepted that in the long-run

innovation drives economic growth and
welfare, not cheap/abundant resources
It is also generally accepted that the market
is an insufficient mechanism to optimise
investments in innovation, hence policy
intervention makes a substantial
contribution
Part 1: Relevance, concepts and difficulties 4

Innovation statistics are relevant because:
They help identify the evolution of deficiencies

and shortages in a country over time
They allow to compare performances between
countries: this benchmarking tool increases
the potential of learning from peers
Hence, innovation statistics help design
evidence-based policies leading to higher
efficiency and impacts

But there are problems in capturing innovation
1. There are blurring boundaries in the

definition and classification of innovations,
hence a need for standards
2. Over time the nature and landscape of
innovation change (hence changing models
for understanding innovation leading to
different emphasis on capturing its
elements)

The current explanatory model for innovation
implies a need to capture interaction and organisation
The 4th generation model
The 5th generation model Tacit knowledge

Knowledge management

A way out: standard definitions
The Oslo Manual presents definitions and “technical”

guidelines for collecting data on:
the general process of innovation (i.e. innovation
activities, expenditures and linkages),
the implementation of significant changes in the
firm (i.e. innovations),
the factors that influence innovation activities, and
the outcomes of innovation.

Scope of the Manual
Covers innovation in the business enterprise

sector only. This includes manufacturing,
primary industries and the services sector, but
not government services such as health or
education
Deals with innovation at the level of the firm
Covers four types of innovations: product,
process, organisational and marketing
Covers diffusion up to “new to the firm”
The Oslo Manual is a dynamic process
(current edition 3rd 2005)
Picture and monitor the Knowledge based economy

The scope of what is considered an innovation has been expanded to include
two new types: marketing and organisational innovation
Importance on innovation in less R&D-intensive industries, such as services
and low-technology manufacturing. Modifies certain aspects of the framework
(such as definitions and relevant activities) to better accommodate the services
sector
Systemic dimension of innovation, focusing on innovation linkages. Greater
emphasis on the role of linkages with other firms and institutions in the
innovation process
Evaluation of linkages is expanded because of the importance of knowledge
flows among firms and other organisations for the development and diffusion of
innovations
Standards of surveys in countries with different economic and social
backgrounds were adapted to the “Oslo” methodology to take into account
specific user needs and the characteristics of statistical systems. i.e. diffusion
and incremental change
Complementarity and compatibility with R&D (Frascati Manual), human
resources in S&T (Canberra Manual), globalisation indicators, patents, the
information society, and biotechnology statistics
Extensions and adaptations of the Oslo Manual
After the publication of the second edition of the Oslo Manual, many
developing countries in various regions of the world conducted
innovation surveys, with adaptations of the proposed methodologies, in
order to capture the particular characteristics of innovation processes
(e.g. dissemination, incremental change, organisational change, use of
ICT, linkages, weaknesses of the statistical system, periodicity,
capabilities, public sector).
Example: The Bogotá Manual (The weakness and lack of co-
ordination of national and local innovation systems in Latin America is
perhaps one of the main elements to be taken into account when
analyzing discrepancies between the behaviour and performance of
regional firms and firms in the more developed countries).
A crucial question for discussion: is there a need for a SEE Innovation
Manual? Is the Oslo Manual, the Bogotá Manual, a regional Manual or
individual adaptations the most appropriate methodology?

The innovation measurement framework
Infrastructure and institutional framework
The firm
Product Process
innovations innovations
Marketing Organisational Innovation

innovations innovations
policies
Other firms Education & public research

system
Demand
Increasing experiences around the globe
The number of countries conducting

innovation surveys is growing: EU
countries, other OECD countries such as
Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan,
and a large number of non-OECD
economies, among them several Latin
American countries, Russia and South
Africa.

Some concrete cases
USA Innovation data collected by ad hoc surveys at high level,
related topics (R&D survey, labour force surveys), past
experiments. Overall the NSF considers the subjective element
in innovation statistics dangerous, but there is increasing
rumour that there will be surveys at the state level
Japan Japanese National Innovation Survey 2003 (J-NIS 2003), very
similar to the CIS but adapted (622,457 enterprises, sample size:
43,174, 9,257 responses, rate: 21%)
Korea 2005 Korean Innovation Survey: the Manufacturing Sector, 2003
the Service Sector
Individual Significant technological innovations (usually literature-based):
European surveys SPRU database
Firm-level innovation activity:

The IFO Innovation Survey (Germany)
CNR-ISTAT Survey (Italy)
SEO Survey (Netherlands)
Nordic Surveys
PACE Survey
2. The Community Innovation Survey
1990 - 2007
Why innovation measurement is
important for the EU?
The “European paradox”: good performance in RTD, bad

in innovation and international competitiveness
Large disparities among EU regions generating political

argument
The 2000 “LISBON” strategy: EU to become the most

competitive region in the world, in which innovation and
the economy of knowledge play a core role
Part 2: The Community Innovation Survey 16

The CIS over time
CIS 1 Heterogeneity, invalidated EU totals and averages
Only able to publish separate results for each country
CIS 21997-98 and 1999 for Methodology and questionnaire much better harmonised,
the period 1996-98 (1997- Possible comparisons of aggregated national data
99 in two countries)
Calculation of EU averages, Implemented under gentlemen's
agreement, Detailed EU rules for the confidentiality for receiving,
processing, disseminating data
CIS 3Carried in 2000-2001 Standard questionnaire for all countries, with set of definitions and
and 2002 for the years methodological recommendations
1998-2000 (1999-00, 99-01 Responsibility to the National Statistical Offices or a national
in some countries ministry
Eurostat collects aggregated and microdata – Commission
Regulation 831/2
CIS 4Carried in 2005 for Frequency: every 4 years, with reduced survey every 2 years
the years 2002-2004 Commission Regulation 1450/04 and Decision of Parliament and
(2003-05 in some cases) Council 1608/03 put innovation statistics on a statutory basis and
make compulsory the delivery of determined variables
Data disseminated through Eurostat’s database

The current experience: respect the Oslo Manual
Four types of innovations that encompass a wide range of

changes in firms’ activities:
Product innovations,
Process innovations,
Organisational innovations,
Marketing innovations
The word “technological” has been removed from the definitions,

as the word raises a concern that many services sector firms
would interpret “technological” to mean “using high-
technology plant and equipment”, and thus not applicable to
many of their product and process innovations.

Innovation definition
An innovation is a new or significantly improved product (good or
service) introduced to the market or the introduction within an enterprise
of a new or significantly improved process.
Innovations are based on the results of new technological developments,
new combinations of existing technology or the utilisation of other
knowledge acquired by the enterprise.
Innovations may be developed by the innovating enterprise or by another
enterprise.
However, purely selling innovations wholly produced and developed by
other enterprises is not included as an innovation activity.
Innovations should be new to the enterprise concerned.
For product innovations they do not necessarily have to be new to the
market.
For process innovations the enterprise does not necessarily have to be
the first one to have introduced the process.
Degree of novelty
The Manual deals with changes that involve a significant degree of

novelty for the firm. It excludes changes that are minor or lack a
sufficient degree of novelty.
However, an innovation does not need to be developed by the firm
itself but can be acquired from other firms or institutions through the
process of diffusion.
Diffusion
Without diffusion, an innovation has no economic impact.
Three concepts for the novelty of innovations are discussed:
new to the firm
new to the market
new to the world and
disruptive innovations

CIS 4 TOPICS
The statistical indicators presented under CIS 4 domain cover a
range of topics related to:
1. Product, process, ongoing and abandoned innovation
2. Innovation activity and expenditure
3. Intramural research and experimental development (R&D)
4. Effects of innovation
5. Public funding of innovation
6. Innovation co-operation
7. Sources of information for innovation
8. Hampered innovation activity
9. Patents and other protection methods
10. Other important organisational and marketing innovations in the enterprise
Breakdowns are given at the level of country, type of innovator, size

classes (by number of employees), unit (percentage and absolute
value), classification of economic activities (in accordance with NACE
Rev. 1) and innovation indicators.
Product and process innovation indicators
Product, developed
mainly by the enterprise or enterprise group
by the enterprise together with other enterprises or institutions
mainly by other enterprises or institutions
Process, developed
mainly by the enterprise or enterprise group
by the enterprise together with other enterprises or institutions
mainly by other enterprises or institutions
Turnover of
unchanged or marginally modified products
new or significantly improved products only new to the firm
new or significantly improved products new to the market
new or significantly improved products only new to the firm as a share of total
turnover
new or significantly improved products new to the market as a share of total
turnover
Enterprises that have new or significantly improved products
only new to the firm
new to the market Part 2: The Community Innovation Survey 22
Innovation activity and expenditure in 2004 Indicators
Enterprises, engaged in:
intramural R&D, extramural R&D
acquisition of machinery, equipment and software
acquisition of other external knowledge
training
market introduction of innovations
other preparations
innovation activities
intramural R&D continuously, occasionally
Expenditure in/for:
intramural R&D, extramural R&D in 2004
acquisition of machinery, equipment and software in 2004
acquisition of other external knowledge in 2004
Total innovation expenditure in euros and as a share of total turnover
As a share of total turnover:
Intramural R&D expenditure
Extramural R&D expenditure
Expenditure in acquisition of machinery, equipment and software
Expenditure in acquisition of other external knowledge
Enterprises are classified by type of innovation activity
Product innovators: introduced new good or service or a significantly improved good or
service with respect to its capabilities, such as improved software, user friendliness,
components or sub-systems. Changes of a solely aesthetic nature and the pure sale of
product innovations wholly produced and developed by other enterprises are not included.
Process innovators: implemented new or significantly improved production process,
distribution method, or support activity for your goods or services. The outcome of such
innovations should be significant with respect to the level of output, quality of products
(goods or services) or costs of production and distribution. Purely organisational or
managerial changes are not included.
Enterprises with innovation activity (propensity to innovate): enterprises that introduce
new or significantly improved products (goods or services) to the market or enterprises that
implement new or significantly improved processes. Innovations are based on the results of
new technological developments, new combinations of existing technology or the utilisation
of other knowledge acquired by the enterprise. The term covers all types of innovator,
namely product innovators, process innovators, as well as enterprises with only on-going
and/or abandoned innovation activities.
Enterprises with only on-going and/or abandoned innovation activity: these
enterprises had on-going or abandoned innovation activities to develop or introduce new or
significantly improved products (goods or services) or implement new processes, including
R&D activity.
Enterprises without innovation activity: these enterprises had no innovation activity
whatsoever during the survey period. These enterprises only answered a limited set of
questions from the survey in relation to the absence of innovation activity, factors
hampering innovation, patents and other protection methods, and other important
organisational and marketing changes within the enterprise.
The CIS 4 Process
Tools & Resources Required

Targets & Sampling
Survey Methodology & Alternative
Techniques
Data Handling
Quality Issues
Source: The 4th CIS , Methodological Recommendations

CIS4 : Tools & Resources Used
CIS based on grant contracts

Participant countries have to follow
EUROSTAT recommendations on
Target population
Survey Methodology
Collection & Processing
Transmission
Questionnaire
Software Application (SAS)

CIS4 : Targets & Sampling (1/4)
Target Population
Total Population of enterprises related to market
activities (NACE C to K)
Core and “non-core” NACE activities coverage
(different quality requirements)
At least all enterprises with size of 10 or more employees
in any of the specified sectors to be included in the
statistical population. Countries could also include
enterprises with less than 10 employees, if they were
treated separately.

Industries included in the population of the CIS4
mining and quarrying (NACE 10-14)

manufacturing (NACE 15-37)
electricity, gas and water supply (NACE 40-41)
core wholesale trade (NACE 51)
transport, storage and communication (NACE 60-64)
financial intermediation (NACE 65-67)
computer and related activities (NACE 72)
architectural and engineering activities (NACE 74.2)
technical testing and analysis (NACE 74.3)
Industries included in the population of the CIS4 -
Additional coverage on voluntary basis:
research and development (NACE 73)
construction (NACE 45)
motor trade (NACE 50)
retail trade (NACE 52)
legal, accounting, market research, consultancy and
management services (NACE 74.1)
Non advertising (NACE 74.4)
core labour recruitment and provision of personnel (NACE 74.5)
investigation and security activities (NACE 74.6)
industrial cleaning services (NACE 74.7)
miscellaneous business activities n.e.c. (NACE 74.8)
real estate activities (NACE 70)
hotels and restaurants (NACE 55)
renting of machinery and equipment without an operator
(NACE 71)
Geographical Coverage
The survey was carried out in all 25 EU Member States, Iceland and
Norway as well as Bulgaria and Romania.
Statistical Units
The main statistical unit for CIS 4 was the enterprise. the enterprise
is defined as “the smallest combination of legal units that is an
organisational unit producing goods or services, which benefits from a
certain degree of autonomy in decision making, especially for the
allocation of its current resources. It may carry out one or more
activities at one or more locations and it may be a combination of legal
units, one legal unit or part of a legal unit.”

CIS4: Survey Methodology (1/4)
Sampling
Sampling Frame should be the Official , up to date,
business register (EU requires MS maintain a
relevant register)
Data collected through a sample survey, census or

combination of both

Stratification
Target Population broken down into similar subgroups
(strata)
Stratification variables
Economic activities (NACE)
Enterprise size
At least the classes: 0-9, 10-49, 50-249, 250+
Regional Aspects

Sample size
No minimum sample size needed
Sample size to take into account the
experience in CIS3 for non-response rates

Sample selection & allocation

Random sampling techniques applied to strata
Different allocation schemes can be used

CIS: Data Handling (1/5)
SAS Programs for Data processing
S/W application
Parameters configuration
Import & Export of data
Estimation of metric, ordinal and nominal variables
Calculation of weightings

Survey questionnaire
CIS4 harmonised survey for ALL NACE

sectors
Coverage of main Oslo Manual themes

Data Collection
Mainly based on mail surveys

Relatively inexpensive means from a widely dispersed
sample
Personal interviews and internet allowed
(with data quality requirements)
CIS4 and combination with other Surveys (with quality
requirements)

Data Editing
Systematic and sustained follow-up with responding

enterprises during the processing cycle
Data quality checks at micro- and macro-level before
sent to Eurostat
Checking routines of SAS delivered to MS

Data Transmission
Aggregated statistics on COMPULASORY

basis
Individual Data record on VOLUNTARY basis

CIS: Data Quality Issues (1/5)
Response Rates
Units that DO NOT respond may have different
characteristics than those that DO
Effort to minimise unit (and item) non-response
Recommended technique: send at least 2
reminder letters

CIS: Quality Issues (2/5)
Unit and Item non-response

The 30% non-respondents margin…
…and the simple random sample of at least 10%
of the non-respondents TO BE SELECTED
Use in calculating weighting factors
Item non-response should force asking Units for
additional info

Imputation
Use of data sources (eg. R&D surveys) before
automatic imputation
After every attempt imputation is permitted
Imputed values should be flagged for proper non-
response analysis

Weighting & Calibration

Survey results should be weighted to produce
valid results for target population
Variables used for calibration: Turnover & # of
Enterprises

Precision of Results
Certain level of precision for Indicators
% of innovation active enterprises
% of innovators that introduced mew/improved products
New/improved products as & of turnover
% of innovation active enterprises involved in innovation
cooperation
Total turnover per employee

CIS4 : Data Flowchart

CIS4: Initial implementation
In the responses given – and not given – one can see

much about the ability and willingness to respond:
9 Unit non-response
(short form questionnaire)
9 Item non-response
(>5 %; not included in questionnaire)
9 Inconsistencies
(macro- and micro-level)
9 External validity
(R&D expenditure)

CIS4: Response Rates
Cyprus
Latvia
Norway
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Spain
Slovenia
Poland
France
Bulgaria
Romania
Estonia
Hungary
Portugal
Czech Republic
Finland
Slovakia
ALL
Malta
Sweden
Denmark
Austria
United Kingdom
Italy
Iceland
Ireland
Switzerland
Germany
Belgium
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Peter S. Mortensen, Studies in Research and Research Policy,

CEIES-seminar – Aarhus, February 5-6, 2007
CIS4: Response Rate variation
Reasons for this very different willingness to respond:
Mandatory/voluntary survey
(and reaction to mandatory surveys in the business sector)
The ”culture” in the business sector to respond

Different industry and size structure
Different data collection procedures
Benchmark in Denmark:
R&D-survey: 75%
CIS4: 63 %

Response rates: CIS3 –> CIS4
Cyprus
100%
Latvia Lithuania
Norway
Lux. 90%
Slovenia Poland Spain
France
Rom ania
Response rate, CIS4

80%
Bulgaria Hungary
Slovakia Es tonia Finland
Czech Portugal
70%
Sweden
ALL
Malta Denm ark
Aus tria
60%
Italy UK
Iceland Ireland
50%
Germ any
40%
Belgium
30%
-40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Incre ase CIS3 -> CIS4

Item non-response: Innovation expenditure
Question reduced from 7 in CIS3 to 4 items in CIS4
Denmark
Ireland
France
Netherlands
TOTAL
Norw ay
Greece
Germany Innovation expenditure:
Czech Republic
Luxembourg
CIS4 indexed to CIS3
Spain
Estonia
Belgium
Italy
Hungary
Lithuania
Romania
Bulgaria
Slovakia
Index:
Portugal
Malta
Local/regional market
Cyprus
vs. National market
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Less, but still too much item non-response and (gu)estimates

3. Linking Innovation Statistics to
European Innovation Policy
• Collective Statistics (all results available for CIS-3 and only individual
countries CIS-4)
• Complementing indicators, building up scoreboards and synthetic
indexes
• Building up policy networks
51
CIS-3 Results
According to the third Community Innovation

Survey (CIS3) there were a total of just under
458.000 enterprises in the business economy of
the EU in 2000. Of these, almost 201.000 were
enterprises that had some form of innovation
activity during the period 1998-2000, equivalent to
44% of the total.
23% of all enterprises were both product and

process innovators, 10 % were product only
innovators, 7% process only innovators and 3%
were enterprises with only on-going and/or
abandoned innovation activity.
Part 3: Linking Innovation Statistics to European 52
Innovation Policy
Typology of innovators, 1998-2000
Number of enterprises Proportion of total

(thousands) number of enterprises (%)
Total 458 100
Enterprises with innovation activity 201 44
Successful innovators 186 41

Product only innovators 47 10
Process only innovators 32 7
Product and process innovators 106 23
Enterprises with only on-going 15 3
and/or abandoned innovation
activity
Enterprises without innovation 256 56
activity

Innovation Policy
Source: Eurostat, NewCronos (theme9/innovat/inn_cis3).
Other important strategic and organisational changes,
EU, 1998-2000 (%)
Enterprises with innovation Enterprises without innovation
activity activity
Total
Strategy 46 17
Management 39 14
Organisation 53 23
Marketing 38 15
Aesthetic change 42 17
Industry
Strategy 40 14
Management 34 12
Organisation 49 21
Marketing 33 13
Services
Strategy 58 21
Management 47 17
Organisation 62 27
Marketing 47 18
54
Proportion of product innovators developing product
innovations with selected partners, EU, 1998-2000 (%) (1)
Total Industry Services
Developed within the

enterprise or enterprise group 66 70 59
Developed in co-operation
with other enterprises or 18 17 22
institutions
Developed mainly by other
enterprises or institutions 9 6 12
(1)Product only innovators and both product and process innovators; the three categories do not sum to 100% due to non-response.

Innovation Policy
Proportion of process innovators developing process
innovations with selected partners, EU, 1998-2000 (%) (1)
Developed within the enterprise

or enterprise group 57 58 56
Developed in co-operation with

other enterprises or institutions 25 22 31
Developed mainly by other

enterprises or institutions 9 9 9
(1) This includes enterprises that are both product and process innovators; the three categories do not sum to 100% due to non- response.

Innovation Policy
Annual average growth rates of turnover, by type of enterprise
and by sector, EU, 1998-2000 (%)
All enterprises 7 8 6
Enterprises with innovation

9 9 9
activity
Enterprises without
3 5 1
innovation activity

Innovation Policy
Proportion of enterprises with innovation activity where
innovation activity was hampered, by sector, EU, 1998-2000 (%)
Seriously delayed 37 31 46
Prevented to be started 22 21 24
Burdened/encumbered with other 22 22 22

serious problems

Innovation Policy
Response rates per Sector

Innovation Policy
Some first analytical findings based on the CIS 3/CIS 4 analys
Some results based on aggregate statistics
Determinants of technological and non technological innovation (such

as e.g. the competitive environment of the firm) are similar, both types
of innovations are closely related.
If a firm does technological innovation together with non technological

innovation, this is the most profitable mix for the firm. The best
combination is: organisational together with product innovation.
The European paradox: sufficient R&D input linked to insufficient STI

output or STI impact.
There is a close connection how people work and learn in a country

and how firms innovate.

Innovation Policy
Source: Eurostat, Statistics on Science, Technology and Innovation
An example of conclusions: the Irish results of CIS-4
Between 2002 and 2004, 52.2% of all firms were classified as

innovation active.
47.2% of small sized firms (10-50 employees) were innovation active

in the three year period surveyed. This activity rate rose to 65.3% for
medium-sized firms (50-249 employees) and to 75.1% for large firms.
The industrial sector recorded an innovation activity rate of 60.9%

between 2002 and 2004. The chemicals sector was the most
innovation active sector in the Irish economy, with 80% of firms
carrying out innovation activities.
43.8% of service sector firms were involved in product or process

innovation. Companies in the
computer related service sectors were the most
innovation active, followed by companies in the
communication and engineering sectors.
Innovation Policy
An example of conclusions: the Irish results (cont.)
Types of Innovation
• 37.9% of firms were “product” innovators. Across the various sectors of the
economy, 48.3% of industrial firms carried out a product innovation
compared to 27.9% of service firms.
• 42.7% of all firms were involved in process innovation between 2002-2004.

Most of these firms were in the industrial sector (49.7%).
Innovation contribution to turnover
• The development of innovative products and processes was a key driver of

turnover between 2002 and 2004. 10.1% of turnover was as a direct result of
innovation development.
• The contribution to turnover from new to market goods (creativity measure)

was 5.6%.
Innovation Policy
An example of conclusions: the Irish results (cont.)
Innovation impacts
• The largest impact of innovation on firms was identified as increasing the

product range, followed by entering new markets.
Factors hampering innovation
• The three largest factors hampering innovation active firms, were

identified as, lack of funds, high costs of innovation, and lack of skills.
• For non-innovative firms, high costs were the main hampering factor.
Collaboration
• 32.3% of innovation active firms were involved in collaboration activities.

Innovation Policy
Complementary activities
The CIS complemented by a variety of other

indicators and surveys, such as
Macro-indicators
Innobarometer
Aggregation of the CIS results into new products
(the EIS and the TC) or as background for new
tools (EIRIMS)
Exploitation of the CIS results by academics

Innovation Policy
Innobarometer 2004
The Innobarometer 2004 results are used to develop three

indicators for the use of innovation assistance
programmes by firms:
1. The policy uptake rate, or the average percentage of

innovation support programmes available in country x
and used by firms that are eligible for assistance.
2. The percent of all firms that use one or more innovation

support programmes.
3. The percent of all firms (eligible and non-eligible

combined) that use each innovation support programme.
Innovation Policy
The Summary Innovation Index used in the EIS is based on the
following 26 component indicators:
Innovation Input (16) Innovation Output (10)
• S&E graduates
• Population with 3rd education • Employment high tech services
• High tech exports *
Innovation • Broadband access *
• Lifelong learning Innovation • Sales of new to market products
Drivers • Sales of new to firm products
• Youth education attainment level * Applications
• Employment in medium & high
tech manufacturing
• Public R&D expenditures

Knowledge • Business R&D expenditures
Creation • Share of medium and high tech R&D *
• Share of firms receiving public funding *
• University R&D financed by private *
• EPO patents
• USPTO patents
Intellectual • Triadic patents *
• SMEs innovating in-house Property • Community Trademarks *
• Innovative SMEs cooperating • Community industrial designs *
Innovation &
• Innovation expenditures
Entre- • Early-stage venture capital
preneurship • ICT expenditures
• Non technological change

Innovation Policy
Eurostat : Statistics on Science, Technology and Innovation
One main use of the CIS data: The European Innovation Scoreboard
(EIS, edition 2005)
0.80
CH
SE
0.70
FI
JP
DK US
0.60
DE
leading
2005 Summary Innovation Index
0.50 AT
UK BE
NL
FR IS
LU
IE
0.40 NO
IT
average
EE PT SI
0.30 ES HU
CY
PL CZ LT
BG MT
0.20 LV
losing RO
SK EL catching
ground 0.10
up
TR
0.00
-5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Dotted lines show EU25 mean performance. Average growth rate of SII

Innovation Policy
Eurostat: Statistics on Science, Technology and Innovation
Identifying policy challenges:
TC Synthesis 2006
Three EIS indicators seen as main challenges in 2005:

Rates of business expenditure on R&D (16 EU25 and 3/8 eight
candidate/associate countries);
Share of science and engineering graduates (13 EU25 and 3/8
eight candidate/associate), and
Participation in life-long learning activities (14 EU25 & 1
candidate country)
Five other indicators also cited more often:
Population with tertiary education
Broadband penetration rates,
Business financed university R&D
SMEs innovating in-house, and
Early stage venture capital.
Innovation Policy
TC Synthesis 2006 (cont.)
Country Challenge CIS evidence basis

Belgium Boost rates of entrepreneurial innovation The CIS indicators on SMEs
in knowledge intensive sectors (notably innovating in-house can be used as a
services) through further increasing the proxy. National or regional data on
attractiveness of starting an own spin-offs or start-ups as well as survey
business data are also relevant
Finland Broadening the basis of innovative The EIS indicators show that in-house
growth oriented companies: the Finnish innovation activities of Finnish SMEs
economy is still highly concentrated, have constantly remained on the level
which increases its vulnerability. of the average EU. Indicators showing
Investments into R&D and innovation the application of innovation also leave
have not so far led to new innovations, room for improvement
businesses, jobs or increased exports to
the extent expected.
France Foster non-technological change The rate of SMEs using non-

technological change is 54% of the EU
average.
Innovation Policy

Greece Innovativeness and Sales of new to firm, but not new to market
extroversion of the business products only 74% of the EU average, while the
firms, as demonstrated by “sales of new to market products” falls to 48% of
relevant indicators, are well the EU average and exports of high technology
below the EU average. This products to 42%. The rates of SMEs innovating
shows a defensive strategy of in house and of those innovating in cooperation
declining sectors, with limited are at 67% and 69% of the EU average
capabilities to renovate their respectively, while innovation expenditures are
product and service mix. at 114% of the EU average due to the strong
Greek performance in non-technical innovation.
Malta Malta faces the fundamental The EIS for 2005 indicates that only 11% of
challenge of inducing Maltese SME engage in in-house innovation.
entrepreneurship. For this to Similarly, the indicator for SMEs cooperating
happen there is the need to with others stands at just 17% of the EU
install instruments that can average
sustain high risk activities
Innovation Policy

Netherlands Limited interaction The high quality of output of the Dutch research
between the actors of infrastructure does not find its way towards
the NIS; inadequate application on the market. This is partly due to low
exploitation of levels of cooperation between the actors of the
research results innovation system, resulting in low levels of “sales
new to the firm” (37% of EU-average) or “new to the
market” (84%) products / services. The trend for both
indicators also indicates negative growth.
Poland Increase RTDI Business R&D expenditures 0.16% (2003), 13% of
potential of SMEs EU-25 average. Declining trend from 0.28% (1998) to
0.16% (2003).
Sales new-to-market products 3.4% (2002), 74% of
EU-25 average.
Portugal Promoting systemic Percentage of SMEs collaborating in innovation
connections and matters,
cooperation among There are no clear signs of improvement.
the NIS players
Innovation Policy
Slovenia Better exploitation of R&D New-to-firm products: Slovenia is in 19th position

inputs for more dynamic in the EU25 (no data available since 2000).
technological restructuring High-tech exports
of business firms
Slovakia Low competitiveness of SMEs innovating in-house: very low, slight
Slovak (domestic) increase in 2000-2003
enterprises resulting from a Exports of high technology products: stagnation
low level of innovativeness Employment in high-tech services: stagnation
Sales new-to-market products: high increases
Med-hi/high-tech manufacturing employment:
significant increases
Spain Lack of venture capital and Early stage venture capital (46%)
entrepreneurial culture Innovation expenditures (69)
SMEs collaborating on innovation (38%)
Patents
Innovation Policy
Sweden A need for international Innovative SMEs co-operating with others,

cooperation and Exports of high technology products
competitiveness strategies
UK Boost the relatively weak (Sales new-to-market products): low level,
intensity of innovation activity in negative trend
enterprises (Export of high tech products): average
level, stagnating trend
(Innovation expenditure): average level,
stagnating trend
(BERD): average level, stagnating trend

Innovation Policy
The European landscape
The Community Innovation Survey - CIS
The European Innovation Scoreboard - EIS
TrendChart
INNOVA
Eurobarometer/
Innobarometer

Innovation Policy
4. The positive loop with academic
research
A rich pool of indicators has attracted the interest of

researchers
An increasing number of publications, some of which give

further ideas for the next CISs
75
Using the CIS for academic research
1. De Bruijn,
Bruijn, P., J., M. (2004), Mapping Innovation: Regional Dimensions of Innovation and Networking in the
Netherlands. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie,
Geografie, vol. 95, issue 4, pp. 433-
433-440.
2. Faems,
Faems, D., B. Van Looy,
Looy, K. Debackere (2005), Interorganizational Collaboration and Innovation: Toward a
Portfolio Approach. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
Management, vol. 22, issue 3, pp. 238-
238-250.
3. Hughes, A. (2001), Innovation and business performance: Small entrepreneurial
entrepreneurial firms in the UK and the EU.
New Economy,
Economy, vol. 8, issue 3, pp. 157-157-163.
4. Filatotchev,
Filatotchev, I., C. Piga,
Piga, N. Dyomina (2003), Network positioning and R&D activity: a study of ItalianItalian groups. R
and D Management,
Management, vol. 33, issue 1, pp. 37- 37-48.
5. Leiponen,
Leiponen, A. (2006), Managing Knowledge for Innovation: The Case of Business Business--to-
to-Business Services. Journal
of Product Innovation Management,
Management, vol. 23, issue 3, pp. 238-238-258.
6. McCann, P. and J. Simonen (2005), Innovation, knowledge spillovers and local labour markets. markets. Papers in
Regional Science,
Science, vol. 84, issue 3, pp. 465-
465-485.
7. Chang, Y.-Y.-C. (2003), Benefits of co-
co-operation on innovative performance: evidence from integrated circuits circuits and
biotechnology firms in the UK and Taiwan. R and D Management,
Management, vol. 33, issue 4, pp. 425-
425-437.
8. Oerlemans,
Oerlemans, L., M. Meeus,
Meeus, F. Boekema (2001), Firm clustering and innovation: Determinants and effects. effects. Papers
in Regional Science,
Science, vol. 80, issue 3, pp. 337-
337-356.
9. Piga,
Piga, C., A. and M., Vivarelli (2004), Internal and External R&D: A Sample Selection Approach. Oxford Bulletin
of Economics and Statistics,
Statistics, vol. 66, issue 4, pp. 457-
457-482.
10. Debackere,
Debackere, K., A. Verbeek,
Verbeek, M. Luwel,
Luwel, E. Zimmermann (2002), Measuring progress and evolution in science science and
technology – II: The multiple uses of technometric indicators. International Journal of Management Reviews, Reviews,
vol. 4, issue 3, pp. 213-
213-231.
11. Webster, E. and P. H. Jensen (2006), Investment in Intangible Capital:
Capital: An Enterprise Perspective. Economic
Record,
Record, vol. 82, issue 256, pp. 82-82-96.
12. Giovannetti,
Giovannetti, E. (2000), Technology Adoption and the Emergence of Regional Asymmetries.Asymmetries. Journal of
Industrial Economics,
Economics, vol.48, issue 1, pp. 71- 71-102.
13. Greenlee, P. (2005), Endogenous Formation Of Competitive Research Research Sharing Joint Ventures. Journal of
Industrial Economics,
Economics, vol. 53, issue 3, pp. 355-355-391.
14. Cainelli,
Cainelli, G., R. Evangelista, M. Savona (2006), Innovation and economic performances in services: a firm- firm-level
analysis. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 435-438.
Economics, vol. 30, pp. 435-
15. Van Der Panne,
Panne, G. and C. Van Beers (2006), On the Marshall-
Marshall-Jacobs controversy: it takes two to tango.
Industrial and Corporate Change,
Change, vol. 15, issue 5, pp. 877-
877-890.
Part 4: The positive loop with academic 76
research
16. Gordon, L., R. and P. McCann (2005), Innovation, Agglomeration, and regional development. Journal of
Economic Geography,
Geography, vol. 5, pp. 523-
523-543.
17. Scellato,
Scellato, G. (2006), Patents, firm size and financial constraints: an empirical
empirical analysis for a panel of Italian
manufacturing firms. Cambridge Journal Of Economics Advance Access published online on March 16. 16.
18. G., Dosi and M. Grazzi (2006), Technologies as problem-
problem-solving procedures and technologies as input- input-output
relations: some perspectives on the theory of production. Industrial and Corporate Change, Change, vol.15, issue 1,
pp. 173-
173-202.
19. Michie,
Michie, J. and M. Sheehan (2003), Labour market deregulation, ‘flexibility’
flexibility’ and innovation. Cambridge Journal
of Economics,
Economics, vol. 27, pp. 123-
123-143.
20. Wood, P. (2002), Debates and Commentary. Services and the ‘New Economy’ Economy’: an elaboration. Journal of
Economic Geography,
Geography, vol. 2, pp. 109-
109-114.
21. Brusoni,
Brusoni, S., O. Marsilli,
Marsilli, A. Salter (2005), The role of codified sources of knowledge in innovation: Empirical
evidence from Dutch manufacturing. Journal of Evolutionary Economics,Economics, vol. 15, issue 2, pp. 211-211-231.
22. Van Beers, C. and B. M. Sadowski (2003), On the Relationship Between Acquisitions, Divestitures and
Innovations: An Explorative Study. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Trade, vol. 3, issues 1-
1-2, pp. 131-
131-143.
23. Bartonoli,
Bartonoli, E. and M. Baussola (2001), The Determinants of Technology Adoption in Italian Manufacturing Manufacturing
Industries. Review of Industrial Organization,
Organization, vol. 19, issue 3, pp.305-
pp.305-328.
24. Mairesse,
Mairesse, J. and P. Mohnen (2005), The Importance of R&D for Innovation: A Reassessment Using Using French
Survey Data. Journal of Technology Transfer,
Transfer, vol. 30, issues 1-1-2, pp. 183-
183-197.
25. Antonucci,
Antonucci, T. and M. Pianta (2002), Employment Effects of Product and Process Innovation in Europe.
International Review of Applied Economics,
Economics, vol. 16, issue 3, pp. 295-295-307.
26. Klomp,
Klomp , L. and G. Van Leeuwen (2001), Linking Innovation and Firm Performance: A New Approach.
Approach.
International Journal of the Economics of Business,
Business, vol. 8, issue 3, pp. 343-343-364.
27. Unger, B. and M. Zangler (2003), Institutional and Organizational Determinants of Product Product Innovations.
Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research,
Research, vol. 16, issue 3, pp. 293-293-310.
28. Nascia,
Nascia , L. and G. Perani (2002), Diversity of Innovation in Europe. International Review of Applied Economics,
Economics,
vol. 16, issue 3, pp. 277-
277-293.
29. Simmie,
Simmie, J. (2003), Innovation and Urban Regions as National and International
International Nodes for the Transfer and
Sharing of Knowledge. Regional Studies,
Studies, vol. 37, issues 6-6-7, pp. 607-
607-620.
30. Kleinknecht,
Kleinknecht, A., K. van Montfort, E. Brouwer (2002), The Non- Non-Trivial Choice between Innovation Indicators.
Economics of Innovation and New Technology,
Technology, vol. 11, issue 2, pp. 109- 109-121.
research
31. Cainelli,
Cainelli, G., R. Evangelista, M. Savona (2004), The impact of innovation on economic performance in
services. The Service Industry Journal,
Journal, vol. 24, issue 1, pp. 116- 116-130.
32. Arundel, A. and A. Geuna (2004), Proximity and the use of public science by innovative European European firms.
33. Duguet,
Duguet, E. and M. MacGarvie (2005), How Well Do Patent Citations Measure Flows of Technology? Technology? Evidence
from French Innovation Surveys. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Technology, vol. 14, issue 5, pp. 375-
375-393.
34. Lambertini,
Lambertini, L., F. Lotti,
Lotti, E. Santarelli (2004), Infra-
Infra-industry spillovers and R&D cooperation: Theory and
evidence. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Technology, vol. 13, issue 4, pp. 311- 311-328.
35. Lööf
ööf, H. and A. Heshmati (2006), On the relationship between innovation and performance: A sensitivity
analysis. Economics of Innovation and New Technology,Technology, vol. 15, issues 4- 4-5, pp. 317-
317-344.
36. Mohnen,
Mohnen, P., J. Mairesse,
Mairesse, M. Dagenais,
Dagenais, (2006), Innovativity:
Innovativity: A Comparison Across Seven European Countries.
Technology, vol. 15, issues 4- 4-5, pp. 391-
391-413.
37. Siegel, S. D. (2003), Data Requirements for Assessing the Private Private and Social Returns to Strategic Research
Partnerships: Analysis and Recommendations. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, Management, vol. 15,
issue 2.
38. De Bruijn,
Bruijn, P. and A. Lagendijk (2005), Regional Innovation Systems in the Lisbon Strategy. European
Planning Studies,
Studies, vol. 13, issue 8.
39. De Noronha Vaz, M., T., M. Cesá Cesário,
rio, S. Fernandes (2006), Interaction between innovation in small firms and
their environments: An exploratory study. European Planning Studies, Studies, vol. 14, issue 1, pp. 95-
95-117.
40. Smith K. (2000), Innovation as a Systemic Phenomenon: Rethinking the Role of Policy. Enterprise and
Innovation Management Studies,Studies, vol. 1, issue 1, pp. 73-73-102.
41. Harabi,
Harabi , N. (2002), The Impact of Vertical R&D Cooperation on Firm Innovation:
Innovation: An Empirical Investigation.
42. Czarnitzki,
Czarnitzki, D. and A. Spielkamp (2000), Business Services in Germany: Bridges for Innovation. The Service
Industries Journal, vol. 23, issue 2, pp. 1- 1-30.
43. Cefis,
Cefis , E. and O. Marsili (2006), Survivor: The role of innovation in firms’firms’ survival. Research Policy, vol. 35,
issue 5, pp. 626-
626-641.
44. Sadowski,
Sadowski, B., M. and G. Sadowski-
Sadowski-Rasters (2006), On the innovativeness of foreign affiliates: Evidence from from
companies in The Netherlands. Research Policy, vol. 35, issue 3, pp. 447- 447-462.
45. Conceiç
Conceição,ão, P., M. V. Heitor,
Heitor, P. S. Vieira (2006), Are environmental concerns drivers of innovation?innovation?
Interpreting Portuguese innovation data to foster environmental foresight. Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, vol. 73, issue 3, pp. 266- 266 -276.
Part 4: The positive loop with academic
research
46. Falk, M. (2005), ICT-

ICT-linked firm reorganisation and productivity gains. Technovation,
Technovation, Vol. 25, issue 11, pp.
1229-
1229-1250.
47. Veugelers,
Veugelers, R. and B. Cassiman (2005), R&D cooperation between firms and universities. Some empirical empirical
evidence from Belgian manufacturing. International Journal of Industrial Organization, Vol. 23, issues 5- 5-6,
pp. 355-
355-379.
48. Belderbos,
Belderbos, R., M. Carree,
Carree, B. Lokshin (2004), Cooperative R&D and firm performance. Research Policy, Vol.
33, issue 10, pp. 1477-
1477-1492.
49. Belderbos,
Belderbos, R., M. Carree,
Carree, B. Diederen,
Diederen, B. Lokshin,
Lokshin, R. Veugelers (2004), Heterogeneity in R&D cooperation
strategies. International Journal of Industrial Organization, Vol. 22, issues 8- 8-9, pp. 1237-
1237-1263.
50. Veugelers,
Veugelers, R. and B. Cassiman (2004), Foreign subsidiaries as a channel of international technology technology
diffusion: Some direct firm level evidence from Belgium. European Economic Review, Vol. 48, issue 2, pp.
455-
455-476.
51. Blind, K. and C. Hipp (2003), The role of quality standards in innovative service companies: companies: An empirical
analysis for Germany. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 70, issue 7, pp. 653- 653-669.
52. Miotti,
Miotti, L. and F. Sachwald (2003), Co-
Co-operative R&D: why and with whom?: An integrated framework of
analysis. Research Policy, Vol. 32, issue 8, pp. 1481-1481-1499.
53. Therrien,
Therrien, P. and P. Mohnen (2003), How innovative are Canadian firms compared to some European European firms?
A comparative look at innovation surveys.
Technovation,
Technovation, Vol. 23, issue 4, pp. 359-
359-369.
54. Tether B., S. (2002), Who co-
co-operates for innovation, and why: An empirical analysis. Research Policy, Policy, Vol.
31, issue 6, pp. 947-
947-967.
55. Lööf
ööf, H. and A. Heshmati (2002), Knowledge capital and performance heterogeneity: A firm- firm-level innovation
study. International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 76, issue 1, pp. 61- 61-85.
56. Evangelista, R., S. Iammarino,
Iammarino, V. Mastrostefano,
Mastrostefano, A. Silvani (2001) Measuring the regional dimension of
innovation. Lessons from the Italian Innovation Survey. Technovation,
Technovation, Vol. 21, issue 11, pp. 733-
733-745.
57. Arundel, A. (2001), The relative effectiveness of patents and secrecy secrecy for appropriation. Research Policy,
Vol. 30, issue 4, pp. 611-
611-624.
58. Veugelers,
Veugelers, R. and B. Cassiman (1999), Make and buy in innovation strategies: evidence from Belgian Belgian
manufacturing firms. Research Policy, Vol. 28, issue 1, pp. 63- 63-80.
59. Evangelista, R., G. Perani,
Perani, F. Rapiti,
Rapiti, D. Archibugi (1997), Nature and impact of innovation in manufacturing
industry: some evidence from the Italian innovation survey. Research Policy, Vol. 26, issues 4- 4-5, pp. 521-
521-
536.
60. Brouwer, E. and A. Kleinknecht (1997), Measuring the unmeasurable:
unmeasurable: a country's non- non-R&D expenditure on
product and service innovation. Research Policy, Vol. 25, issue 8, pp. 1235- 1235-1242.
Part 4: The positive loop with academic
79
research
Final remarks and
opening the debate
80
Some questions
Is it worth launching innovation surveys in the SEE
countries?
If yes, should that be on an individual basis, or as a
regional exercise?
If the latter is the case is the Oslo Manual, the Bogotá
manual or a new regional manual be the most
appropriate tool?
Can Eurostat be of help?
Would a regional benchmarking exercise (EIS-like) be
useful?
81
A final word to remember
Innovation statistics is a difficult task, is

expensive and is only a tool
Unless the resources are available to build up
on them and the willingness to exploit them
exists, it is unnecessary to go into the
trouble
For intelligent-policy making statistics alone
are insufficient
82
For More Information contact me:
Lena Tsipouri: tsipouri@econ.uoa.gr
or directly for
CIS: Eurostat, August Goetzfried,

August.Goetzfried@ec.europa.eu
EIS: MERIT, Hugo Hollanders,

Hollanders@MERIT.unimaas.nl

Innovation Statistics (Nayagan B)

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Innovation Statistics (Nayagan B)

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

University of Athens

Centre of Financial Studies

Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators:

Prof. Lena Tsipouri

1. Relevance, concepts and difficulties

 It is generally accepted that in the long-run

Part 1: Relevance, concepts and difficulties 4

 They help identify the evolution of deficiencies

Part 1: Relevance, concepts and difficulties 5

1. There are blurring boundaries in the

Part 1: Relevance, concepts and difficulties 6

The 5th generation model Tacit knowledge

Part 1: Relevance, concepts and difficulties 7

The Oslo Manual presents definitions and “technical”

Part 1: Relevance, concepts and difficulties 8

 Covers innovation in the business enterprise

 Picture and monitor the Knowledge based economy

Part 1: Relevance, concepts and difficulties 11

Infrastructure and institutional framework

Marketing Organisational Innovation

Other firms Education & public research

 The number of countries conducting

Part 1: Relevance, concepts and difficulties 13

Firm-level innovation activity:

 The “European paradox”: good performance in RTD, bad

 Large disparities among EU regions generating political

 The 2000 “LISBON” strategy: EU to become the most

Part 2: The Community Innovation Survey 16

Part 2: The Community Innovation Survey 17

Four types of innovations that encompass a wide range of

The word “technological” has been removed from the definitions,

Part 2: The Community Innovation Survey 18

 The Manual deals with changes that involve a significant degree of

 new to the world and

Part 2: The Community Innovation Survey 20

Breakdowns are given at the level of country, type of innovator, size

 Tools & Resources Required

Part 2: The Community Innovation Survey 25

 CIS based on grant contracts

Part 2: The Community Innovation Survey 26

Part 2: The Community Innovation Survey 27

Industries included in the population of the CIS4

 mining and quarrying (NACE 10-14)

Part 2: The Community Innovation Survey 30

 Data collected through a sample survey, census or

Part 2: The Community Innovation Survey 31

Part 2: The Community Innovation Survey 32

Part 2: The Community Innovation Survey 33

Sample selection & allocation

Part 2: The Community Innovation Survey 34

SAS Programs for Data processing

Part 2: The Community Innovation Survey 35

 CIS4 harmonised survey for ALL NACE

Part 2: The Community Innovation Survey 36

 Mainly based on mail surveys

Part 2: The Community Innovation Survey 37

 Systematic and sustained follow-up with responding

Part 2: The Community Innovation Survey 38

 Aggregated statistics on COMPULASORY

Part 2: The Community Innovation Survey 39

Part 2: The Community Innovation Survey 40

Unit and Item non-response

It is generally accepted that in the long-run

They help identify the evolution of deficiencies

Covers innovation in the business enterprise

Picture and monitor the Knowledge based economy

The number of countries conducting

The “European paradox”: good performance in RTD, bad

Large disparities among EU regions generating political

The 2000 “LISBON” strategy: EU to become the most

The Manual deals with changes that involve a significant degree of

new to the world and

Tools & Resources Required

CIS based on grant contracts

mining and quarrying (NACE 10-14)

Data collected through a sample survey, census or

CIS4 harmonised survey for ALL NACE

Mainly based on mail surveys

Systematic and sustained follow-up with responding

Aggregated statistics on COMPULASORY

The ”culture” in the business sector to respond

Less, but still too much item non-response and (gu)estimates

According to the third Community Innovation

23% of all enterprises were both product and

Determinants of technological and non technological innovation (such

If a firm does technological innovation together with non technological

The European paradox: sufficient R&D input linked to insufficient STI

There is a close connection how people work and learn in a country

Between 2002 and 2004, 52.2% of all firms were classified as

47.2% of small sized firms (10-50 employees) were innovation active

The industrial sector recorded an innovation activity rate of 60.9%

43.8% of service sector firms were involved in product or process

Three EIS indicators seen as main challenges in 2005: