S T and Innovation Statistics as tool for

S &T and Innovation Statistics as tool for measurement progress in innovation performance by Emira Becic, Ph. D. Ministry of Science, Education and Sports Republic of Croatia Forum on “Measuring and Fostering the Progress of Societies: A new Approach for CIS and Eastern European Countries” OECD, ROSSTAT and Russian Academy of Labor and Social Relation, 29 - 30 September 2008, Moscow

Contents 1. 2. 3. 4. Challenges for Measurement Innovation statistics Performance & Impact Analysis Some questions !

1. Challenges for Measurement • Globalisations • The Knowledge-based Economy towards a • • • Sustainable Knowledge Society: EU innovation gap with Japan and the US; where is Croatia Internationalisation of R&D Science policy: towards improving current state of art Accessing Croatia to EU: Chapter 18 - Statistics

Globalisation • Ageing population • • • – Increasing pressure on public finance -retirement expenditures – Social security – unemployment, healthcare and pensions. Mass immigration and labour markets - impact on growth and productivity – immigration young human capital – Education Environmental sustainability Economic environment – Incresing global markets – Technological change Investment in Knowledge Energy and increasing lack of natural sources

USERS and their DEMANDS Type of Users Demands Politicians Government Parliament S&T decision policy makers Local authorities Scientific community Business sector Society International organizations NGOs Up-to-date, key indicators by policy-relevant categories Long time series, detailed statistics, comparable indicators by research views General overview, detailed information on their own sector and connecting sectors Mass media, inquiry ranking nations by competitiveness, searching co-operation partners, knowledge of global tendencies

2. Innovation statistics: Relevance, concepts and difficulties in practice

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

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

But there are problems in capturing innovation • There are blurring boundaries in the definition • and classification of innovations, hence a need for standards Over time the nature and landscape of innovation change (hence changing models for understanding innovation leading to different emphasis on capturing its elements)

The Oslo Manual is a dynamic process • Picture and monitor the Knowlege Based • • Economy/the Knowledge Based Society Standards of surveys in countries with different economic and social backgrounds were adapted to the “Oslo”methodology ask to take into account specific user needs and the characteristics of statistical systems. Complementarity and compatibility with other relevant methodology: e. g. R&D (Frascati Manual), human resources in S&T (Canberra Manual), globalisation indicators, patents, the information society, and biotechnology statistics.

Increasing experiences around the world • The number of countries conducting innovation surveys is growing: EU countries, other OECD countries such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand Japan, and a large number of non-OECD economies, among them several Latin American countries, Russia and South Africa. • CBS of Croatia conducting innovation survey within frame of the EU statistics: – CIS 3 - Pilot survey, 2005 for the period 2001 -2003 – CIS 4, 2008 for the period 2004 -2006 within the frame PHARE Multicountry Programme (February 2007 - February 2008) through technical assistance.

Some concrete cases USA Innovation data collected by ad hoc surveys at high level, with related topics (R&D survey, labour force surveys). JAPAN Japanese National Innovation Survey 2003 (J NIS 2003), very similar to the CIS but adapted KOREA 2005 Korean Innovation Survey: the Manufacturing Sector, 2003 the Service Sector Individual EU survey Firm level innovation activity: EU level: CIS survey Comunnity Innovation Surveys (CIS 1 – CIS 4). • The IFO Innovation Survey (Germany) • CNR ISTAT Survey (Italy) • SEO Survey (Netherlands) • Nordic Surveys

CIS 4 TOPICS The statistical indicators presented under CIS 4 domain cover a range of topics related to: • Product, process, ongoing and abandoned innovation • Innovation activity and expenditure • Intramural research and experimental development (R&D) • Effects of innovation • Public funding of innovation • Innovation co-operation • Sources of information for innovation • Hampered innovation activity • Patents and other protection methods • Other important organisational and marketing innovations in the enterprise

3. Performance & Impact Analysis -Existence of indicators and impact measurements -Global comparison

The CIS 4 – Performance & Impact Analysis • Data Quality Issues – Response Rates variation: Reasons for this are very different willingness to variation respond (e. g. Different data collection procedures; The ”culture”in the (e. g. business sector to respond; Different industry and size structures; ) Performance & Impact Analysis - Existence of indicators and impact measurements: • Indicators from The Community Innovation Survey –CIS used within The European Innovation Scoreboard –EIS (set of indicators used to measure innovation performance by countries and country ranking by Summary Innovation Index-SII) – – – Lack of more indicators by countries for calculation SII? Data availability by country composite indicator scores (relative share) • Regional Innovation Scoreboard (RIS) • Impact on other Composite Indexes: – Competitiveness Index as an indicators for measurement progress in competitiveness by national/regional/global level.

Identifying policy challenges • Trend Chart Synthesis Report, 2006 (EIS –SII, 2006) – (o/w 8 indicators from 26) • Three EIS indicators seen as main challenges in 2005: – Rates of business expenditure on R&D (16 EU 25 and 3/8 eight candidate/associate countries); – Share of science and engineering graduates (13 EU 25 and 3/8 eight candidate/associate), and – Participation in life-long learning activities (14 EU 25 & 1 candidate country) • Five other indicators also cited more often: – – – Population with tertiary education. Population education Broadband penetration rates, Business financed university R&D SMEs innovating in. SMEs in-house, and Early stage venture capital.

Innovation performanse: EIS-SII SII- provide an aggregate national innovation performance

International comparison - Global Innovation Scoreboard Izvor: http: //www. proinnoeurope. eu/index. cfm? fuseaction=page. display&topic. ID=84&parent. ID=51

International comparison - Global Innovation Scoreboard • Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, Japan, the US, Singapore • • • and Israel are the global innovation leaders. The group of next-best performers includes Germany, Denmark, Netherlands, Canada, the UK, Republic of Korea, France, Iceland, Norway, Belgium, Australia, Austria, Ireland, Luxembourg and New Zealand. The group of follower countries includes the Hong Kong, Russian Federation, Slovenia, Italy, Spain, Czech Republic, Croatia, Estonia, Hungary and Malta. The group of lagging countries includes Lithuania, Greece, China, Slovakia, South Africa, Portugal, Bulgaria, Turkey, Brazil, Latvia, Mexico, Poland, Argentina, India, Cyprus and Romania.

SEE: region in transition Source: Ivo, Šlaus (2007). online: http: //www. sciencedirect. com/science/journal/00163287) Country Range ESI 0 – 100 HDI 0 -1 GCI Ranking GI Ranking 62 - 1 HLS 0 - 100 Sl. LOVENIA 58. 8 0. 879 31 25 69. 5 CROATIA 62. 5 0. 809 53 22 66. 0 B&H 51. 3 … … … 61. 5 … … 61 47. 2 0. 772 81 … 56 … 0. 775 75 40 59. 5 GREECE 50. 9 0. 885 35 26 … ALBANIA 59. 7 0. 733 … … … ITALY 47. 2 0. 913 41 24 84. 5 AUSTRIA 64. 2 0. 926 17 8 81. 5 HUNGARY 62. 7 0. 835 33 23 65. 0 CZECH REPUBLIC 50. 2 0. 849 39 15 69. 5 TURKEY 50. 8 0. 742 65 53 72. 0 USA 53. 2 0. 939 2 11 89. 5 IRELAND 54. 8 0. 925 30 1 90. 5 FINLAND 73. 9 0. 930 1 10 91. 5 S & MN MACEDONIA ROMANIA

4. Instead of conclusion: Some questions ! • Is it worth launching innovation surveys in the • • • CIS/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 Bogota or a new regional manual be the most appropriate tool? Would a regional benchmarking exercise (EISlike) be useful?

Croatia

Thanks for your attention! emira. becic@mzos. hr