Apresentação em tema: "An historical perspective The “Frascati Manual” and the “Oslo Manual”"— Transcrição da apresentação:
1 Science, Technology and Innovation indicators: benchmarking R&D policies An historical perspectiveThe “Frascati Manual” and the “Oslo Manual”S&T indicatorsInnovation indicatorsSome evidence from innovation surveysConcluding remarks
2 C&T in OCDE: 63-95 1963 1995 DE NL BE PT GR IT IE US JP UK FR 2 4 6 8 24681012140,511,52,533,51963Staff in R&D / 1000 inhabitants% GNP applied in R&DDENLBEPTGRITIEUSJPUKFRUE24681012140,511,52,533,5DENLUEBEPTGRITIEUSJPUKFR24681012140,511,52,533,51995
3 S&T indicators: evolving from basic indicatores... Which effects to be considered???Output, impact, efficiency: output/input... The need for: terms of referencea model of analysisOther effects: how to consider the “context”??TimeScale: scale/intensityStructureSpace.....
6 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.
7 The linear modelResearch-basedSequentialTecnocratic
9 “The Chain Link Model” Research Knowledge “Communities of practice” PotentialMarketsInvention/analytical designDetailed design& TestRe-design& ProductionDistribution& marketKnowledgeResearchTechnology platformsBUSKline & Rosenberg (1986)
11 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).
12 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)
13 Science and technology indicators Human resources for S&TR&DPatentsBibliometricsTechnological balance of paymentsTrade in high-tech products
14 Permilagem de investigadores (ETI) pela população activa, para o último ano disponível Notas: FIN, JP, E, P: 2000; Uk, A: 1998; EUA: 1997; Todos os outros países: Média da UE não inclui o LuxemburgoFonte: European Commission, Key Figures 2002 – Science, Technology and Innovation
15 Novos doutorados em ciência e tecnologia por permilagem de população entre os 25 e os 34 anos, para o último ano disponívelNotas: 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
16 Scale vs Intensity in R&D The effect of scale:Scale vs Intensity in R&D
18 Dynamic effects to complement static data The effect of time:Dynamic effects to complement static data
19 Crescimento médio anual dos investigadores pela população activa, para o último ano disponível Notas: FIN, JP, E, P: 2000; UK, A: 1998; EUA: 1997; Todos os outros países: Média da UE não inclui o Luxemburgo e a Áustria.Fonte: European Commission, Key Figures 2002 – Science, Technology and Innovation
20 Notas: I, UE: 1998-1999. A média da UE não inclui o Luxemburgo Crescimento de Novos doutorados por permilagem de população, entre os 25 e os 34 anos, entre 1999 e 2000Notas: I, UE: A média da UE não inclui o LuxemburgoFonte: European Commission, Key Figures 2002 – Science, Technology and Innovation
21 A média da UE não inclui o Luxemburgo GERD:Notas: B, DK, EL, IRL, I, NL, S: ; JP: ; Todos os outros países e UE:A média da UE não inclui o LuxemburgoFonte: European Commission, Key Figures 2002 – Science, Technology and Innovation
22 Conceição, Heitor and Oliveira(2001) The historical evidence: intensity of R&D support in USConceição, Heitor and Oliveira(2001)PrivateFederal
23 Conceição, Heitor and Oliveira(2001) The historical evidence: cumulative R&D support in USConceição, Heitor and Oliveira(2001)FederalPrivate
24 Perspectives for “change”: Public vs private R&D expenditures0,0250,050,0750,10,1250,250,3750,5Public R&D Expenditures per capitaPrivate R&D Expenditures per capitaCanadaDenmarkFinlandFranceGermanyIrelandJapanNetherlandsNorwayPortugalSpainSwedenUKUSBelgiumCzech RepHungaryKoreaMexicoNew ZealandPolandTurkeyFRDJPUSAUKP97P95ESSEIRP81
25 characterizing structure: Public and private funding of R&D
26 BERD / GERDWith 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
27 Share of R&D funding (OECD) OECD, S&T Databases, Sept. 2001 Industry-dominated systemsBalanced Industry+ /government systemsBalanced Industry/government+ systemsGovernment-dominated systems
28 Share of R&D expenditure (OECD) OECD, S&T Databases, Sept. 2001 Industry-dominated systemsBalanced industry/government systems with universities being more important performers than public research institutionsBalanced industry/government systems with public research institutions being more important performers than universitiesGovernment-dominated systems
29 Share of R&D funding and expenditure (OECD) OECD, S&T Databases, Sept USAIrlandNetherlandsSpainHungaryPortugal
30 Variation of BERD:Notas: JP: ; A, D, E, P, FIN, EUA: ; Todos os outros países e UE:Fonte: European Commission, Key Figures 2002 – Science, Technology and Innovation
31 Comparative growth in public and total R&D expenditures (average annual growth rates over , or nearest years available)
32 Growth of Public and Private expenditure on R&D OECD, S&T databases, October 2001
33 Percentagem de PMEs que executam I&D no sector privado com financiamento público, no último ano disponívelNotas: 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
34 Crescimento médio anual da percentagem de PMEs que executam I&D no sector privado com financiamento público, de 1995 até ao último ano disponívelNotas: JP, I, Fin, P: ;E: ; IRL: ; D, DK, UE, EUA: ; Todos os outros países: ; A média da UE não inclui a Bélgica, Espanha, Irlanda, Luxemburgo, Áustria e Suécia.Fonte: European Commission, Key Figures 2002 – Science, Technology and Innovation
40 Scientific “Productivity” and inter-institutional cooperation EC Benchmark of S&T Policies, September 2001
41 What would we like to know? Innovation :What do we know?What would we like to know?
42 The Imperative: improve productivity and efficiency, not the extension with which resources are used Contributions of Hourly Productivity and of Hours Worked to the “Gap” in GDP per Capita (1998)
43 How to increase productivity? There is a need to enhance innovation. Why? Because Portugal is already competitive in low value-added activities.Proportion of Exports According to the Price/Quality Ratio (Value) of Exported Goods (EUROSTAT)
44 What is lacking to enhance productivity? a) R&D investment, namely by firmsHigh Tech Exports and R&D Intensity in Firms (OCDE,2002)
45 What is lacking to enhance productivity? b) expenditure on innovationFirm Revenues Invested in Activities Oriented towards Innovation
46 c) Portugal also lacks technical skills and competencies What is lacking to enhance productivity?c) Portugal also lacks technical skills and competencies
47 What is lacking to enhance productivity? d) Portugal is behind in organizational, as much as in technological, innovationAdoption of Flexible Management PracticesOCDE (1999). Employment Outlook
48 Market Regulation and Employment Protection What is lacking to enhance productivity?Market Regulation and Employment ProtectionNicoletti, Scarpetta & Boylaud; OECD (2000)
49 What does Portugal have going for it? a) Portugal is now a dual country: excellence coexists with poor performanceWritten Literacy: Results for Population between 20 and 25 Years with Advanced High School DiplomasLiteracy: Results for the Entire Population
50 What does Portugal have going for it? b) Portugal has been growing fast, but less so than other “catching-up” countriesVariation in the Number of Patents and Number of Published Scientific Articles
51 What does Portugal have going for it? c) Portugal has a new wealth in incoming peopleGrowth in the Population of Each Country with Foreign Origin ( ), OECD(2000)
52 Average Annual Real Value Added Growth of knowledge Based Industries OECD(2000)UK*BelgiumPortugal**Greece*Sweden***NL*AustriaJapanNorwayCanadaDenmarkSpain***MexicoItalyUSFranceKoreaGermany24681012142030405060Share in Business Sector Value Added of Knowledge Based Industries(share year 1996 except: *1995;**1993; ***1994)of Knowledge Based Industries (1985-share year)Average Annual Real Value Added Growth
53 Balanço tecnológico de pagamentos como percentagem do PIB, para o ano mais recente Notas: E, FIN: 1998; F, EUA:1999; Todos os outros países: Fonte: European Commission, Key Figures 2002 – Science, Technology and Innovation
54 Crescimento médio anual das receitas da balança de pagamentos em tecnologia para os anos mais recentesNotas: Valores calculados em PPS a preços de 1995; E, FIN: ; EUA, F: ; P, UK: ; Todos os outros países:Fonte: European Commission, Key Figures 2002 – Science, Technology and Innovation
55 In the way of a summaryPortugal 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 opportunitiesA 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.
56 Main indicators from innovation surveys Number of innovating firmsby sectorby firm sizeCost of innovationPercentage of sales due to new productsThe Community Innovation Survey, CIS
57 The Community Innovation Survey (CIS) The harmonised EU/OECD questionnaire General information about the firmType of innovation (product, process)Sources of information for innovationObjectives of innovationFactors hampering innovationCost of innovationImpact of innovation
58 Survey Target Population The Third Community innovation Survey: CIS 3Application to PortugalSurvey Target PopulationAll Manufacturing and Service firms with more than 10 employeesSurvey SampleInitial Sample: 4727 firms stratified by firm size and sector (INE–1999 Data)Corrected sample: 4127 firmsSectors SurveyedMining and Quarrying, all Manufacturing, Utilities, Wholesale Trade and a selection of industries in the Service SectorInnovation 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.
59 The Third Community innovation Survey QuestionnaireHarmonized questionnaire (the same for Services and Manufacturing and other industries)Questions regarding:General InformationBasic Economic InformationProduct and Process InnovationPatents and Other Protection MethodsInnovation Activities and ExpenditureIntramural R & DOther Strategic and Organizational Important ChangesEffects of InnovationPublic FundingInnovation Co-operationSources of Information for InnovationHampered Innovation ActivityCompanies CharacteristicsInnovation ExtensionCompanies OptionsSystemic Characteristics
60 Convergence Leading the Convergence towards the EU Mean 100% 80% 60% Proportion of Service Innovating EnterprisesIreland60%For comparison with the data of 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(2) Includes the results not considered in (1).Note: Final disaggregated and comparable results are not yet available for the other participants in the exercise.(1)(2)CIS III(Preliminary)AustriaLuxemburgGermanyUKCIS II40%FranceNetherlandsPortugalSwedenItalyFinlandNorway20%Belgium0%20%40%60%80%100%Proportion of Manufacturing Innovating Enterprises
61 Convergence: Input vs Output Manufacturing Sector80%IrelandGermanyAustriaNetherlands60%UKSwedenNorwayFrancePorportion of Innovative EnterprisesCIS III(Preliminary)CIS II40%FinlandBelgiumPortugal20%0%0.0%2.0%4.0%6.0%8.0%Expenditure in Innovating Activities as Share of Turnover
62 Questions to be raised: Purely quantitative vs. qualitative convergenceQuestions to be raised:Do results indicate latecomer growth?Do qualitative weaknesses remain?OrIs there evidence of qualitative changes as well?
63 Evidence Supporting Qualitative Change ME’s Catching Up
64 Note: Less confined to the Technologically advanced sectors Evidence Supporting Qualitative ChangeInnovation pervades the economyNote: Less confined to the Technologically advanced sectors
65 Evidence Supporting Qualitative Change Shift of innovation expenditure toward intangibles: services sectorHowever, weak and ambiguous in the manufacturing firms - decrease in marketing & training, rise in R&D…
66 (Source: R&D Survey, IPCTN, 2002) Evidence Supporting Qualitative Change… consistent with the rise of BERD since 1997, still quite low by EU standards…(Source: R&D Survey, IPCTN, 2002)
67 Evidence Supporting Qualitative Change … and with the observed correlation between technological and other innovations
68 Evidence Supporting persistent structural weaknesses Industrial structure skewed to very small and small enterprises...
69 Evidence Supporting persistent structural weaknesses … which are much less prone to innovate…
70 Evidence Supporting persistent structural weaknesses … and to middle-low and low technology sectors…
71 Evidence Supporting persistent structural weaknesses … also less innovative
72 Evidence Supporting persistent structural weaknesses Limited market scopeThe 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
73 Evidence Supporting persistent structural weaknesses Protection MethodsProtection 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.
74 Evidence Supporting persistent structural weaknesses The relatively low academic qualification of the labor force persists, especially in the manufacturing sectorThis is all the more important as there is a significant difference in qualification between innovative and non-innovative firms
75 Evidence Supporting persistent structural weaknesses As in CIS II, firms' perception of the obstacles hindering innovation contrasts with that of EU
76 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
77 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 innovationTechnological 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.
78 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?
79 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?