No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
A Two-Tier or Multi-Tier Europe? Assessing the Innovation Capacities of Central and East European Countries in the Enlarged EU
Abstract
This article assesses the innovation capacities of the candidate central and east European countries (CEECs) and the countries of the EU by using a new framework for measuring national innovation capacity (NIC), based on 25 indicators. Based on regression and cluster analysis the article shows that NIC in the enlarged EU does not follow a simple east-west divide. The wider Europe is structured into three groups of countries, and CEECs fall into two, the less-developed and medium-developed EU groups. NICs in the enlarged EU are assessed across four dimensions of capacity: absorptive, R&D, diffusion and demand. In each of these dimensions a two- to three-tiering of countries is observed, which goes beyond a simple east-west pattern. The results of this assessment have important implications for new Member States and candidate countries, as well as for the EU policy towards structural assistance. Copyright Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2004.
... The concept of innovation capacity has the characteristic of being a multidimensional concept, which authors such as Furman et al. (2002), Porter (1999), Radosevic (2004), Muller et al. (2006, Castellaci and Natera (2012) have approached it from different approaches. ...
... 7 out that innovation capacity is the result of different factors, such as skilled labor and the physical quality of infrastructure. Radosevic (2004) mentions that to understand innovation capacity we must go beyond R&D, which is why he proposes a classification of indicators based on the national innovation system approach. Radosevic (2004) takes as a guide the conceptual model of the National Innovation Capacity (NIC) from Furman et al (2002), which explains the relationship between the different elements that make up the innovation capacity framework. ...
... Radosevic (2004) mentions that to understand innovation capacity we must go beyond R&D, which is why he proposes a classification of indicators based on the national innovation system approach. Radosevic (2004) takes as a guide the conceptual model of the National Innovation Capacity (NIC) from Furman et al (2002), which explains the relationship between the different elements that make up the innovation capacity framework. In Figure 1 you can see the dimensions that make up the Regional Innovation Capacities (RIC) model, which is an adaptation of Radosevich's CNI model developed by Muller et al. (2008) for the sub-national context, in which the CRI are grouped into: a) R&D supply, b) absorption capacity, c) diffusion capacity, and d) demand. ...
Objective: The objective of this study is to investigate the innovation performance of Mexican states to identify the factors that explain the unequal performance of Mexican states in terms of innovation generation. Theoretical Framework: The study design is based on the regional innovation capabilities (RICs) proposed by Muller et al (2008). Method: The impact of the RICs on the generation of innovations in Mexican states is analyzed using 17 indicators under a multiple regression model based on data from official Mexican sources for each of the 32 states. Results and Discussion: The results show that regional technology absorption capacity is the factor that has the greatest impact on the innovation performance of Mexico's states. Research Implications: These results highlight the relevance of factors associated with technological learning for the patenting rate performance of Mexican states. These implications could include the designers and decision-makers of public policies on science and technology, as well as the institutions that produce research and development. Originality/Value: This research can be a very particular reference for future research to address and propose new conceptual frameworks for the study of regional inequalities in the generation of innovations. In addition, this study evidences the need for greater availability of data related to innovation processes in the country.
... The four pillars of the index are rooted in the notion of governance which 'concerns the systems and practices that governments use to set priorities and agendas, implement policies and obtain knowledge about their impacts and effectiveness' (OECD, 2005). The notion of innovation governance assumes that managing the innovation process is an activity where the boundaries between and within public and private sectors are blurred. ...
... In that context, government does not have the power to get things done based on its authority; it must contribute by steering and guiding. Government is one of the actors involved in the interactive process involving various forms of partnerships, collaboration, competition and negotiation (OECD, 2005). By the same token, governance can suffer from the lack of accountability, lack of transparency and poor representation of stakeholders. ...
... Agenda setting is the stage in the policy cycle when policy objectives are defined. It is influenced by various stakeholders and involves decisions about which issues are on the political agenda (OECD, 2005). It involves discussion and decisions aimed at changing the national organizational structure. ...
The working paper develops a methodology for a benchmarking innovation policy in emerging and catching up economies. The methodology takes the form of an index which defines innovation policy as a set of policy measures (financial, regulatory, informational) to support not only the generation and diffusion of new products, processes or services but also diffusion, demand, absorptive capacity and linkages (domestic and international) in the innovation system. This broader view of innovation policy is appropriate for emerging and catching-up economies whose drivers of growth include more than R&D based innovation.
... Para cumplir con este propósito, el estudio busca definir un modelo con la integración de las variables que determinan o predicen la productividad de las entidades en la generación de innovaciones En la primera sección se presenta una revisión de estudios previos para conformar los antecedentes conceptuales y empíricos de esta investigación. En la segunda, se expone el marco conceptual propuesto por Radosevic (2004) y Muller et al. (2006 sobre las capacidades de innovación, incluyendo las capacidades de creación de conocimiento, absorción, difusión y demanda, pues este enfoque permite analizar y comprender la generación de innovaciones desde un enfoque territorial multidimensional. En la tercera sección se describe el método empleado en este estudio. ...
... El concepto capacidad de innovación tiene como característica ser multidimensional, autores como Furman et al. (2002), Porter (1999), Radosevic (2004), Muller et al. (2006), Castellaci y Natera (2012) han abordado desde diferentes enfoques. A pesar de ser considerado como un concepto altamente estilizado, nos provee de una primera definición clave para estudiar la evolución de los Sistemas Regionales de Innovación (Castelllaci y Natera, 2012). ...
... Para Radosevic (2004), entender la capacidad de innovación es ir más allá de I+D, por eso propone una clasificación de indicadores basándose en el enfoque de sistema nacional de innovación. Radosevic (2004) toma como guía el modelo conceptual de la Capacidad Nacional de Innovación (CNI) de Furman et al (2002), donde se explica la relación entre los diferentes elementos del marco de capacidad de innovación. ...
MexicoThis research seeks to identify the factors that may explain the unequal performance of the states of Mexico in terms of generating innova-tions. To this end, the “innovation capabilities” approach, developed by some European authors and adapted to subnational contexts, is adapted. According to this approach, the innovation capacities of the territories are basically composed of: a) the capacity to create knowledge; b) the capacity to absorb technologies; c) the technology diffusion capacity, and; d) the demand / market capacity of the regions.
... In their work in 2002, Lundval and colleagues summarized previous evolution of the NIS concept arguing that the concept is not applicable only on the problems of growth and development in high-income countries of the North, but also is relevant for the South where efficiency of the system depends of overall infrastructure and institutions, and also depends on past experiences as they are reflected in the tangible and intangible aspects of the structure of production and values and policies (Lundval, et al., 2002). Radosevic with colleagues put a lot of efforts in investigating innovation systems of economies in transition particularly in Eastern Europe (Radosevic, S., 2004;Kravtsova, V., Radosevic, S., 2012). Some systems can be more innovative than the others when they need to develop strategies and institutional reforms that will respond to the new challenges. ...
... Individual elements of the framework are interrelated. In aggregation, they produce the national innovation capacity (Radosevic, S., 2004 Aggregation of four groups of indicators is defined in cited article (Radosevic, 2004). One implementation of this concept has involved data for Serbia and this is comparison of nine South East European countries: Bulgaria, Croatia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Greece, Hungary, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, and Turkey (Kutlaca Dj., Radosevic, S., 2011). ...
... Individual elements of the framework are interrelated. In aggregation, they produce the national innovation capacity (Radosevic, S., 2004 Aggregation of four groups of indicators is defined in cited article (Radosevic, 2004). One implementation of this concept has involved data for Serbia and this is comparison of nine South East European countries: Bulgaria, Croatia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Greece, Hungary, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, and Turkey (Kutlaca Dj., Radosevic, S., 2011). ...
Current structural characteristics of the national innovation system (NIS) in Serbia, and their close interactions with economic growth, call upon us to perform deeper analysis which can explain its functional problems. In this paper our first attempt is to justify the general thesis that development of the national innovation system can be best explored as a historical process, second attempt is regarding differences in NIS development paths. Some NIS may be due to historical reasons, better prepared to learn, to adopt new knowledge, and deal with new contexts than others. We will present a short historical overview of innovativeness in Serbia, during the long period of time, having in mind that these analyses are important for tracing the path of contemporary features of the system. Special attention was given to the patent analyses and cooperativeness of the system. We will elaborate coerativeness as one of the most important factors influenced on the shaping of NIS in Serbia.
... Individual elements of the framework are interrelated. In aggregation, they produce the national innovation capacity (Radosevic, 2004). ...
... [ Figure 9.1 The concept of national innovation capacity Source: Radosevic (2004). In the following sections of this chapter we analyse the position of SEE countries with respect to each of the four major components of their NIC. ...
... Source: Calculation of NIC according to methodology in Radosevic (2004). The aggregation of different dimensions of innovation capacity into the NIC index reveals considerable differences in innovation capacity between countries, which is to be expected given the analysis above. ...
A majority of the countries of SEE are so-called ‘catching-up’ economies.1 This basically means that their enterprises operate largely behind the technological frontier, by using the best available foreign technologies and by competing on the basis of production capability. However, catching up is not a process of mere imitation; it requires adaptation and innovation (Fagerberg and Verspagen, 2003; Fagerberg and Godhino, 2005). The capability to innovate remains essential, as no nation can ‘free-ride’ on the world scientific system (Salter and Martin, 2001). Economic catch-up in the twenty-first century places greater demands on the knowledge-related capabilities of the catchingup economies (Mowery, 2005, p. 30). The changing conditions surrounding the catching-up process make ‘the role of indigenous public research more important today than it was in the 20th century’ (Nelson, 2005, p. 19). Accordingly, assessing the innovation capacity of South East Europe is not an exercise in studying the future, but a quite important element for our understanding of the growth potential of this region in the medium and long term.
... The evolutionary studies of transition economies however left out of focus the importance of linking the socio-economic contexts with the prerequisites of formation, and also transition of NIS. From the NIS perspective, most of the literature focused on OECD or developed countries (Kitanovic, 2005;Krammer, 2008), with only a few studies outside the group of highly industrialised countries (e.g., Nelson, 1993;Dahlman and Nelson, 1995), or in transition countries (e.g., Gu, 1999;Arocena and Sutz, 2000;Intarakumnerd et al., 2002), especially those in Central and East European or East European Countries, that would analyse Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (e.g., Radosevic, 1998Radosevic, , 1999Radosevic, , 2004Kriaucioniene, 2007, Inzelt andBalogh, 2009;Krammer, 2008). Inzelt and Balogh (2009) have drawn attention to changing innovation systems and focused on R&D sector of CEECs during transition period, predicting a positive scenario for a knowledge-driven catching-up process for CEECs. ...
... In most of the transition countries, the development level of NIS and the development level of the economic structure are inconsistent, and feature asymmetric development profiles. Using indexed rankings, Radosevic (2004) confirms that East European countries are below European Union average in national innovative capacity terms. Krammer (2008) stressed the importance of R&D commitments and innovative tradition in form of existing knowledge stock in Eastern European countries. ...
The paper provides an evolutionary study on the transition of national innovation systems (NIS) within the catching up economy context in the Baltic Region. The regional and institutional context provides an exceptional chance to look at the evolution of economies from planned economy towards free market, and reaching advanced high economy profile over 25 years (International Monetary Fund, 2015). However, the authors argue, that economy transition does not simultaneously lead to the technological upgrading and sophistication of NIS. The comparative evolutionary data analysis in three Baltic States, namely Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, that reached advanced economy profile in 2015 (IMF) is used to illustrate the statement. The period of study encompasses ten years of membership in European Union (2006-2015), and aims at providing the national innovation system transition trends from the evolutionary perspective. The authors aim to provide the reader with the broad overview of transition patterns taken. Empirical findings demonstrate the differences in national innovation system transition, whereas Estonia demonstrates balanced development of national innovation system, and Lithuania together with Latvia demonstrate asymmetries and stagnating development despite successful economic transition.
... The evolutionary studies of transition economies however left out of focus the importance of linking the socio-economic contexts with the prerequisites of formation, and also transition of NIS. From the NIS perspective, most of the literature focused on OECD or developed countries (Kitanovic, 2005;Krammer, 2008), with only a few studies outside the group of highly industrialised countries (e.g., Nelson, 1993;Dahlman and Nelson, 1995), or in transition countries (e.g., Gu, 1999;Arocena and Sutz, 2000;Intarakumnerd et al., 2002), especially those in Central and East European or East European Countries, that would analyse Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (e.g., Radosevic, 1998Radosevic, , 1999Radosevic, , 2004Kriaucioniene, 2007, Inzelt andBalogh, 2009;Krammer, 2008). Inzelt and Balogh (2009) have drawn attention to changing innovation systems and focused on R&D sector of CEECs during transition period, predicting a positive scenario for a knowledge-driven catching-up process for CEECs. ...
... In most of the transition countries, the development level of NIS and the development level of the economic structure are inconsistent, and feature asymmetric development profiles. Using indexed rankings, Radosevic (2004) confirms that East European countries are below European Union average in national innovative capacity terms. Krammer (2008) stressed the importance of R&D commitments and innovative tradition in form of existing knowledge stock in Eastern European countries. ...
... collaborations and publications). Further, we enquired if economic attributes such as the Coefficient of National Innovation Capacity (NIC) (Radosevic 2004) were associated with the reported available resources (input) and research output factors (publications and collaborations) of FAW research. We hypothesised that the former socio-political differences between Eastern and Western Europe are still detectable in FAW research and are correlated with economic indicators such as the NIC, and that a stronger international cooperation is linked to a higher research output. ...
... We hypothesised that the former socio-economic differences between the EU countries have had an impact on the research activities and outcomes. For this purpose, different parameters such as number of employees in different categories, average total number of scientific staff, number of EC-grant funded projects, completed projects dealing with 'animal welfare' as identified in the CORDIS database (CORDIS 2015) as well as the mean impact factor of the journals that have been publishing the five research papers highlighted by the respondents, were correlated with the Coefficients of National Innovation Capacity (NIC) and its Research and Development Component (R&D) as published by Radosevic (2004) for the 24 EU-countries (EU28 without Croatia, Cyprus, Luxembourg and Malta) for which this information was available. ...
Against the background of divergent political developments across Europe, farm animal welfare (FAW) science has evolved during the last three decades as an inter-disciplinary research area. Recent achievements include pan-European research projects and the implementation of animal welfare assessment systems on-farm. The aim of this study was mapping activities for FAW science and investigating geographical differences in FAW research in Europe (EU28 + candidate countries and the European Economic Area) with regard to available resources (e.g. human resources, infrastructure, funding) and research output (e.g. collaborations and publications). Further, we enquired if economic attributes such as the Coefficient of National Innovation Capacity (NIC) were associated with the reported available resources and research output factors (publications and collaborations) of FAW research. Based on questionnaires sent out to a wide researcher network in regions of an enlarged Europe, we found differences with regard to ‘input factors’ such as human resources, animal and laboratory facilities and national and international research funding and ‘output factors’ such as inter/national collaboration, participation in EU-funded projects related to FAW and number of publications. Respondents were allocated to 4 Western and 4 Eastern geographical clusters of countries (‘hubs’). There were a larger number of researchers, students and technical staff per laboratory in Western compared to Eastern hubs. A pronounced difference was found for funding, as 35% of respondents in the Eastern hubs stated that they lack funded FAW projects compared to 4% in the West. In general, respondents from the Western hubs stated significantly more often that they run projects in the field of FAW research (p = 0.034). Furthermore they were significantly more involved in EU-funded schemes, such as FP7 (EU’s Research and Innovation Funding Programme for 2007–2013) with 24% (p = 0.013) and in ERA-NET Cofund projects (European Research Area—Coordination of Research Programmes) with 5.7% (p = 0.042). The average sum of impact factors from 5 self-named citations was 3.0 ± 2.8 (mean, SD) in the Eastern hubs and 7.5 ± 4.4 in the Western Hubs. When investigating associations of the economic status of EU countries with resource factors and achievements in FAW research, the ‘Coefficient of National Innovation Capacity (NIC)’ was moderately correlated with the input factors for FAW research such as the average number of PhDs currently employed in the institutions (rs = 0.66; p < 0.001) and the total number of employed researchers (rs = 0.56; p < 0.01). Stronger associations were found between the scientific output and the economic ranking, here represented by the cumulative impact factor of their published papers (rs = 0.74; p < 0.001), and between the number of EC-project reports published in CORDIS 2015 with NIC (rs = 0.67; p < 0.001). We conclude that due to economic disadvantages as represented by the lower NIC or rare participation in EU-funding schemes, the Eastern Hubs could not reach the same level of output factors as the Western Hubs, which negatively impacts on the number of young researchers (PhDs) and impact factors, thus resulting in lower visibility and influence.
... Similarly, firms lacking the necessary absorptive capacity (Zahra and George 2002;Cohen and Levinthal 1990) to adopt new or alternative technologies may have a harder time adapting to EU standardization. In contrast, enterprises with an international workforce, export experience or innovation capabilities might be better equipped to adapt to standardization because of built-up experience and flexible organizational cultures (Radosevic 2004). Recent calls have been made for micro-level research on the way standardization affect firms (European Commission 2006;de Vries et al. 2009) yet those are still scarce. ...
... Such differences in innovative capabilities are especially relevant in the European Union. The European Commission has identified innovative capabilities as essential to withstand competitive single market pressures (Radosevic 2004). Moreover, innovative capabilities can result in higher market opportunity exploitation and lower compliance cost because of enhanced absorptive capacity (Cohen and Levinthal 1990;Zahra and George 2002), which is "a set of organizational routines and processes by which firms acquire, assimilate, transforms and exploit knowledge to produce a dynamic organizational capability" (Zahra and George 2002: 186). ...
We examine how the European Union (EU) standardization policy is perceived by firms by exploiting a survey dataset on firms’ benefits. We explore whether perceived benefits are associated with firm size and firm capabilities. We find strong evidence that the perceived benefits of standardization is not equally distributed across firm size classes, industries and countries. Our study indicates that small ventures are less likely to perceive benefits from EU standardization than their larger counterparts, in particular in Eastern European and Mediterranean countries. Additionally, we find evidence that firms with the capabilities to be innovative, exporting and that employ foreign labor are more likely to perceive benefits from standardization than their non–innovative, non–exporting and non–foreign labour–employing counterparts. We suggest EU and EU Member States, in particular in Eastern and Mediterranean Europe, to focus on facilitating standardization compliance by enhancing the critical firm capabilities identified. Stimulation efforts could also be considered to address simultaneously supporting capabilities and standardization literacy.
... This focus on what Autio (1998) calls the knowledge generation and diffusion subsystem of public research, educational, and technology intermediary institutions should, however, be balanced by an equal focus on the corresponding knowledge application and exploitation subsystem of private firms and their networks. The concept of national or regional innovation capacity is now widely recognised to have multiple components, including those that affect the demand for and absorption of knowledge, and the quality of governance (Muller et al., 2008;Navarro et al., 2009;Radosevic, 2004;Rodrı´guez-Pose and Di Cataldo, 2015). In less-developed regions, the specific structure of the economy is a key factor determining this capacity (Novotny´et al., 2016). ...
... The second section explores key processes of interaction between universities and other regional actors, and how these have been affected by the more entrepreneurial strategic logic of smart specialisation, through case studies of regions in Czechia (South Moravia) and Poland (Lodzkie). Notwithstanding differences in innovation system and capabilities between these CEE countries and the selected regions within them (Muller et al., 2008;Radosevic, 2004), their shared heritage as former communist countries ensures some broadly common features in terms of the public research system and relationship to the rest of the economy. ...
Universities and other knowledge institutions have quickly come to be seen as central to smart specialisation. However, their exact role in Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation has yet to receive much critical attention in the academic literature. This is particularly notable as defining features of smart specialisation – such as the entrepreneurial dynamic of the strategy-formation process, and differentiated nature of the goals for strategies in regions with varying research and innovation capabilities – represent challenges to the notion that public research organisations should be drivers of smart specialisation in all regions. This paper articulates these conceptual tensions and then explores how they are unfolding in practice with particular reference to regions with less-developed research and innovation systems. The empirical material is drawn from a European-wide survey of institutional factors affecting the implementation of Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation and two regional case studies from Central and Eastern Europe. Overall the paper reveals a multifaceted picture of still emerging (and potentially conflicting) dynamics around the introduction of smart specialisation that have the potential to reconfigure the role of universities in regional innovation systems in Europe.
... La normalisation technique est un pilier essentiel du programme de marché commun de libre-échange dans l'Union Européenne (Pelkmans, 1987 (Zahra et George, 2002 ;Cohen et Levinthal, 1990) nécessaire pour adopter des technologies nouvelles ou alternatives. À l'inverse, des entreprises avec une main d'oeuvre internationale, une expérience à l'exportation ou des capacités d'innovation pourraient bien être mieux armées pour s'adapter à la normalisation en raison de l'expérience acquise et de cultures organisationnelles flexibles (Radosevic, 2004 Pour comprendre quelles entreprises bénéficient vraiment de la normalisation, il est nécessaire de réaliser des études au niveau de la firme. Celles-ci sont pourtant rares. ...
... De telles différences en matière de capacités innovantes sont tout particulièrement pertinentes dans l'Union Européenne. La Commission européenne a identifié les capacités innovantes comme essentielles pour résister à la pression concurrentielle du marché unique (Radosevic, 2004). En outre, les capacités innovantes peuvent occasionner une exploitation plus grande des opportunités de marché et un coût de mise en conformité plus faible en raison d'une capacité d'absorption augmentée (Cohen et Levinthal, 1990 ;Zahra et George, 2002), renvoyant à « un ensemble de routines et processus organisationnels par lesquels les firmes acquièrent, assimilent, transforment et exploitent la connaissance pour construire une capacité organisationnelle dynamique » (Zahra et George, 2002 : 186). ...
L'ouvrage expose les résultats d’un projet de recherche, dénommé SMESESAP pour « Les déterminants de la stratégie d’innovation et de la performance de croissance des PME et des indépendants » (projet BELSPO TA/00/40), ayant pour objectif d’étudier empiriquement ces deux questions au moyen d’un modèle global de performances entrepreneuriales et de quelques stratégies empiriques inédites dans le champ de l’entrepreneuriat.
... Kombinacijom više izvora moguće je izračunati definisane indikatore, porediti te države i pratiti izgradnju nacionalnog inovacionog sistema u njima. Upravo to je i ilustrovano u [Radosevic, 2004]. Međutim, problem harmonizacije koji rješavaju razvijene države, mnogostruko se uvećava dodatnim problemima u zemljama u razvoju i tzv. ...
... Indikatori NIK prema konceptu II[Radosevic, 2004] DIMENZIJA (II) KONCEPTA NIK -INDIKATORI Javni troškovi za NI i IR rad (% BDP) IR2 Troškovi za NI i IR rad poslovnog sektora (% BDP) IR3 Zaposleni u NI i IR sektoru kao deo ukupno aktivnog stanovništva IR4 Patenti u visoko tehnološki intenzivnim oblastima, registrovani u EPO ...
Projekat Istraživanje nacionalnog inovacionog kapaciteta kao faktora za uspostavljanje ekonomije i društva Crne Gore zasnovanog na znanju i kompatibilnog sa inovacionim sistemom Evropske unije imao je za cilj kreiranje metodološke, informaciono-dokumentacione i analitičke podrške upravljanja naučnim i tehnološkim razvojem u Crnoj Gori.
Integralni rezultat projekta jeste istraživačka osnova za uspostavljanje i razvoj nacionalnog inovacionog sistema Crne Gore, odnosno, uspostavljanje sistema za upravljanje znanjem kao sistema za podršku vođenja naučne, tehnološke i inovacione politike, zasnovane na informacijama i znanju. Ova studija je rezultat napora autora da podatke i informacije o razvoju nauke i inovacija u Crnoj Gori prikupi, obradi, analizira i organizuje tako da predstavljaju kvantitativnu i kvalitativnu osnovu za pripremu ključnih aktivnosti na uspostavljanju funkcionalnog nacionalnog inovacionog sistema Crne Gore.
U knjizi je izložena primjena koncepta nacionalnog inovacionog kapaciteta, koji predstavlja značajan teoretski i praktični doprinos u analizi procesa kreiranja i funkcionisanja nacionalnog inovacionog sistema. Njime se uvodi metrika koja identifikuje i kvantifikuje faktore koji direktno ili indirektno utiču na stvaranje i funkcionisanje ekonomije zasnovane na znanju, i obezbijeđuje izračunavanje agregatnog pokazatelja nivoa nacionalnog inovacionog kapaciteta, čiji je značaj ne samo u vrijednosti određenoj za jednu godinu, već u mogućnosti praćenja promjene te vrijednosti u dužem vremenskom periodu, u cilju praćenja i evaluacije rezultata tekuće inovacione politike države.
... The country had a large labor force with a favorable skill-pay ratio, with wages at 7% of the German level, an education system requiring at least ten years of schooling, and an extensive network of vocational schools supplying a large army of skilled and semi-skilled industrial workers. Hundreds of industrial research institutes provided a large pool of highly skilled technical personnel and the university system churned out large numbers of engineers (Radosevic, 2004. Far from being all obsolete, a large part of the industrial base was built with Western technology that in 1989 was between eight and 15 years old (Ban, 2014). ...
... A slightly more sophisticated analysis than benchmarking of individual countries is the one performed by some innovation scholars who attempt to group or cluster countries; a priori (by specific common characteristics) or a posteriori (similar levels of technological capacity or performance around technology clubs) (Chaminade et al. 2018). Cluster analysis studies (e.g., Radosevic 2004;Balzat and Pyka 2006;Filippetti and Peyrache 2011;Pinto and Santos Pereira 2013;Mahroum and Al-Saleh 2013; Alnafrah and Zeno 2020) use a wide range of indicators, covering a significant number of countries and present the importance of some aspects of NISs for growth and development. However, the studies use short periods of analysis, and the results (rankings) are similar to scoreboards (i.e., expected cluster groups). ...
Various analytical frameworks, such as the National Innovation System (NISs) and N-tuple innovation helices, have been developed to address technological change at a spatial or sectoral-technological level. Several quantitative methodological approaches have been used to capture the effectiveness, efficiency, and overall performance of innovation at the national level. Reviewing these approaches, we highlight important aspects of the innovation process, such as actor heterogeneity, the intensity of interactions, and evolutionary dynamics within and between innovation subsystems that are often underestimated. We conceive NISs consisting of five interacting helices: government, academia, industry, society, and finance. Actors belonging to these helices develop their behavior – in terms of resource commitment/allocation – in the context of interdependencies and interactions that condition the effectiveness and efficiency of their actions. As a result, their expectations are formed from their perception of how other actors and the system behave. We develop a conceptual framework that goes beyond the static illustration of ‘innovation scoreboards’ and linear models. It illustrates how individual parameter changes – in one helix of the system – may generate non-linear effects throughout. We use a causal loop diagram (CLD) to depict the intricacies of the interactions amongst various elements in NISs, and a stock-and-flow diagram (SFD), which forces more detailed specification of causal mechanisms. Our framework facilitates helix-based actor heterogeneity and highlights the key causal mechanisms and feedback loops – set in motion from actor interactions – that govern NIS’s evolution and performance without losing oneself in immense detailed complexity.
... Micro-level evidence for a large sample of EE&fSU economies shows that productivity drivers are related to production capabilities rather than R&D and patenting (Fedyunina and Radosevic (2021)). Radosevic (2004a), based on evidence for the 1990s, shows that weak demand for innovation is the CEE's greatest weakness compared to the developed EU. ...
This essay is an interpretative survey that explores the post-socialist transformation in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union (EE&fSU) from a neo-Schumpeterian perspective. It argues that we cannot understand the challenges of technological upgrading of the post-socialist region if we only adopt the lens of what can be termed transition economics. Instead, the post-socialist transformation is an open-ended process whose outcomes can be better understood as a disequilibriating evolutionary process involving the misalignment of different levels and parts of innovation systems. We develop a multi-level analytical framework and outline several major transformation processes involving dynamic interactive capabilities as the core precondition for technology catching up. Technology accumulation and innovation systems are hybrid systems whose dynamism rests on various governing principles. The swing from one pure mode of coordination (plan) to other (market) explains limited technological upgrading in both periods. Dynamic innovation systems are quintessentially hybrid systems. Crucial to this is an understanding of the role which the state plays, both as a contributor and as an obstacle to the transformation towards sustainable economic growth.
... La capacidad de innovación refl eja diversas métricas que dan cuenta del potencial de desarrollo de un territorio (Kutlaca & Radosevic, 2011). Generalmente, esta capacidad se asocia al efecto de la innovación tecno económica sobre el crecimiento económico y la industrialización, como la capacidad para absorber y difundir tecnología, así como la demanda por su generación y utilización (Radosevic, 2004); lo que implica variables de impacto en la oferta de Investigación y Desarrollo. Porter, Stern & Furman (2000) han defi nido la capacidad innovadora como un potencial de la economía, que se utiliza prolongadamente para crear un fl ujo de innovaciones comerciales. ...
Durante las últimas décadas, la innovación ha sido un eje estratégico en el desarrollo de las regiones. La innovación tecno-económica se ha centrado en las relaciones entre el mercado y el capital, en la creencia que es el mercado quien motiva el crecimiento económico en una base de progreso técnico (Schumpeter, 1969). Sin embargo, diversas manifestaciones sociales, institucionales, políticas y ambientales han puesto en la mesa del debate lo acuciante de un cambio. El sistema de innovación deberá desarrollar nuevas propiedades y características que le permitan a las regiones aumentar sus capacidades (Roddien, 2010), con base en el dinamismo y colaboración de sus subsistemas productivo, institucional y financiero (Palacios, Estrada & Álvarez, 2016). A partir de esto, se construyó un índice global y se utilizó el análisis de series de tiempo. El principal hallazgo es la expansión del índice de eficiencia global; la prospectiva de cada subíndice muestra aceleración de la estructura económica, las clases creativas, el esfuerzo innovador y la infraestructura, pero de desaceleración en el medio ambiente.
... With innovation at heart of the policy to foster long-term growth for the EU, it is no surprise that research into innovations in European countries has attracted a lot of attention from the academic community, especially during the last decade [e.g. Andreasen et al. (1995); Iammarino (1998, 2003); Radosevic (1999Radosevic ( , 2004; Rodríguez-Pose (1999; Rodríguez-Pose and Fratesi (2004); Archibugi and Lundvall (2000); Borr as (2003); Gri±th et al. (2006); Van Vught (2009); Krammer (2009)]. ...
This paper finds that the financial crisis has tremendously impacted innovation in most European countries with Greece and Lithuania being the most affected while Finland and Austria have the least negative effect on their innovation activities. Greece and Lithuania’s national innovation systems share many common characteristics which are in sharp contrast to those shared by Finland and Austria, including most notably culture, quality of the higher education system, science and technological capability, and structure of the economy. Those identified distinctions along the main dimensions of the national innovation systems between the most and least affected countries could to a large extent explain why the effect of the financial crisis is heterogeneous across European countries.
... According to Radosevic (2004), the indicators used to measure demand aspects of national innovation capability are national welfare indicators that include finance, competitiveness, and economic stability. Market capacity is the market capacity that benefits innovation including financial markets and innovation of a country. ...
p> The purpose of this paper is to analyze the dimensions and variables of National Innovation Capability. The findings in this paper are to refine the National Innovation Capabilities Dimension model developed by Chang and Lin (2012) by integrating a Network Dimension of Innovation. This paper analyzes the dimensions and variables of National Innovation Capability through a system approach that includes Input Sub System, Process Sub System, and Output Sub System. Network Dimensions Innovation is an integral part of the National Innovation Capabilities Dimension. This dimension is an important part, because the National Innovation Capability will largely depend on how innovative actors form networks and interact among them. The dimensions of National Innovation Capability are integrated into three sub system in a systems approach that includes input, process, and output. In the input consists of Dimensions of Innovation Resources. In the process consists of Innovation Demand Dimension, Innovation Network Dimension and Innovation Diffusion Dimension. In the output consists of Dimensions of Innovation Output. Each Dimension has some different variables. The entire dimensions and variables of these three sub system become unified as a Dimension and Variable of National Innovation Capability.
Keywords : National Innovation Capability, Dimensions, Variables, Sub Systems
... Ñîãëàñíî ñîâðåìåííûì èññëåäîâàíèÿì, êðîìå ñóùåñòâåííîé ðåñòðóêòóðèçàöèè ýêîíîìè÷åñêîé ñèñòåìû, èçìåíåíèÿ ïðîïîðöèé ìåaeäó òðàäèöèîííûìè ÷àñòÿìè õîçÿéñòâåííîãî ìåõàíèçìà, íåîáõîäèìî ñîçäàíèå ñïåöèàëüíûõ ñòðóêòóð. Îíè äîëaeíû îáåñïå÷èòü, ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû, ïðåâðàùåíèå çíàíèé â êîììåð÷åñêèé ïðîäóêò, ò. å. ïåðåâîä èç íåðûíî÷íîãî â ðûíî÷íûå ñåãìåíòû ýêîíîìèêè, è, ñ äðóãîé ñòîðîíû, àäàïòàöèþ ïîëó÷åííûõ çíàíèé äëÿ ðåøåíèÿ ïðèêëàäíûõ çàäà÷ õîçÿéñòâåííîãî ðàçâèòèÿ [14]. ...
The following forms of state and regional support of innovation processes are examined: direct state financing, methods of indirect promotion of innovations, direct and indirect state incentives together with institutional mechanisms. Principles of successful implementation of the innovation policy at the national and regional levels are determined
... Nabídka univerzit a jejich středisek výzkumu a vývoje bude přirozeně odpovídat poptávce v regionu(Gál a Ptáček 2011, 2017. Nemusí to být jen zájem místních společností, ale v případě nadnárodních společností působí efekt překlenování v oblasti výzkumu a vývoje v podstatně menší míře(Radosevic 2004(Radosevic , 2011. Nadnárodní společnosti navíc obvykle akceptují a účastní se výzkumu a vývoje na univerzitách pouze tehdy, pokud je skutečně vynikající.Ukazuje se, také že klíčovou pro míru úspěchu v oblasti přenosu inovací mimo univerzity nastává v regionech, kde podpůrná institucionální infrastruktura funguje správně a vyrovnává často odlišné požadavky a očekávání klíčových aktérů v oblasti, tj. ...
... The first factor is determination and longing to innovate (innovation impulse), while the second factor comprises opportunities and the feasibility to innovate (innovation capacity). From this standpoint, the economic literature interprets innovation capacity of organizations [63] and innovation capacity of countries [64,65]. Notwithstanding, the previous literature, according to our knowledge, has not researched and debated about the innovation impulse or innovation capacity of an individual as determinants related to his/her aspiration for growing a firm. ...
... Най-общо сложността произтича от изменчивостта, многосвързаността и неопределеността (Бънкова, 2014). (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967), Минцбърг (Mintzberg, 1979), Дракър (1992), Ансоф (Ansoff, 1989), Бушев (1992), Портър (Porter, 2008), Бънкова (1993, 1999, 2013), Донъли, Гибсън и Иванчевич (1997), Станчева (2006) и други. Най-често под "среда" се разбира "околната (външна) среда", но в общата теория на системите много лесно "външното" става "вътрешно", системата -елемент, а елементътсистема. ...
Основният обект на творческото дирене е сложността, нейните източници (изменчивостта, многосвързаността и неопределеността) и начините за справяне с нея в българския сектор на информационните и комуникационни технологии (ИКТ). Дисертацията разглежда последователно сложността, произтичаща от променливите граници на сектора (изменчивост на сектора) и сложността, произтичаща от отклоняващото се от официалните норми поведение в сектора – скриване или неправилно отчитане на икономическа дейност и сива икономика (водещо до трудно определеми ключови показатели в дейността на сектора). Специално от гледна точка на особеностите на ИКТ сектора, сложността в него е системно свързана с иновативността (пряко произтичаща от многосвързаността). От една страна, скоростта, обхвата и въздействието на иновациите в информационните и комуникационни технологии пряко увеличават сложността, дори в порядъци, а от друга страна, конкретни ИКТ-базирани решения намаляват сложността в дадена под-област (например, управление на отношенията с клиенти). Изследователският подход в дисертацията, освен като социално
конструктивистки може да се определи и като този на “вградената теория”.
Предметът на изследването е възможността за справяне със сложността в
ИКТ сектора и средата му от участниците в него чрез метода на сценария.
Възможността в случая не се разглежда просто като вероятностно събитие
(possibility), а като потенциал (opportunity) и вариантност (alternatives).
Прилагането на метода на сценария за първи път в дадена фирма, неговото съществено усъвършенстване с добавянето на нови техники или интегриране с други функционално-управленски методи представлява организационна иновация. В този смисъл, предмет на изследването е потенциалът за дифузията на
една конкретна организационна иновация и диверсификацията на потенциалните й проявления (варианти на приложение) в България. Освен сам по себе си организационна иновация (за фирмата), методът на сценария може и се прилага в процеса на дизайн на нови продукти, пазари, процеси на производство и маркетинг, т.е. в цялостния иновационен процес на фирмата.
... Here, the offer from the universities and their R&D centres will naturally comply with the demand within the region Ptáček 2011, 2017). It may not be just the interest from local companies, but, in the case of multinational companies, the spill-over effect in the R&D area works to a significantly lesser extent (Radosevic 2004(Radosevic , 2011. In addition, multinational companies usually accept and participate in R&D only if it is really excellent; ...
The role of universities in strengthening innovation: the case of EU structural funds in the Czech Republic The paper is focused on the role of universities and other scientific institutions in the mutual strengthening of innovation potential in both the public and private sectors of the Czech Republic within the framework of the utilisation of EU structural funds. First, the article will be focused on the concept of the third role of universities in the specific context of post-communist countries and the emerging role of universities as important players in R&D creation and transmission. There are surely many burdens and specific features which make the situation different than in the Western European context. The impact of the EU structural funds on R&D policy in the upgrading and creation of R&D infrastructure is substantial, as they represent 14.3% of the total amount allocated and universities using half of this amount. The burdens which exert both a negative and positive influence on this process depend on factors like the location in the metropolitan regions than with the sectoral focus and innovative potential of companies operating in the region, and also depend on the supportive institutional infrastructure. The empirical part of the article will analyse the role of the Science and Research for Innovation Operational Programme (in the period 2007-2013) in upgrading both applied and fundamental research and how it shows a concentration in metropolitan regions especially those of South Moravia, Central Bohemia and Mora-via-Silesia. Because of above mentioned facts it is expected that there will be rising gap between metropolitan and non-metropolitan regions in R&D infrastructure performance in the future.
... The majority of the post-socialist countries of central and eastern Europe, such as Romania, Bulgaria and the six countries of the former Yugoslavia, collectively also known as the Western Balkans (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, FYR Macedonia, Kosovo, Montenegro and Serbia), lag significantly behind the rest of Europe in terms of scientific and technological performance (Krammer, 2009;Radošević, 2004), institutional reforms (Sanfey & Zeh, 2012), global competitiveness (WEF, 2013) and overall economic growth. Despite the efforts invested in developing their national innovation systems (Švarc, 2014), it seems that the transition to capitalism has so far been associated with a reduction rather than an improvement in their innovative capabilities (Högselius, 2003;Radošević, 2014). ...
Innovation culture and the social determinants of national innovation capacities have rarely been empirically researched in innovation-weak post-socialist countries despite the fact that innovation is considered one of the main drivers of their economic growth and convergence. Applying an alternative approach to identifying the factors that shape a national innovation culture is challenging as there has been little empirical research in the area. Moreover, the global cross-cultural concepts of national innovation culture hold little relevance for post-socialist countries. The trans-disciplinary socio-political approach employed in this article relies on the qualitative analysis of the dominant concepts used in political economy and sociology to identify the socio-cultural and political aspects of Croatia’s post-socialist transformation into a capitalist country. This is presented as one of the critical formative determinants of innovation culture. Croatia is chosen as a typical innovation-weak post-socialist country, where innovation remains weak. The analysis presented here suggests that transition-induced factors dominated by ‘crony variance of capitalism’ have an equal, if not a greater, suppressive impact on the current innovation culture than standard explanations based on the socio-cultural heritage of socialism and cultural inertia.
... However, 'priming the pump' by using public funding to stand in for greater fi rm investment in R&D and innovation is not a solution, even in the short term. Where weak demand for innovation is the key obstacle to more R&D activity, the situation cannot be remedied by increasing public R&D spending when there is little demand for innovation from the business sector (Radosevic, 2004). What we learn from these case studies is that governments can refi ne policy measures and targets to encourage academia–industry linkages insofar as these are possible and desirable as innovation goals for the national innovation system at its current stage of development. ...
Within the context of knowledge economies, academia-industry partnerships have moved high on the policy agenda of many countries. There is now a clear perception that governments have a strong role to play in the development and support of national innovation systems, of which academia-industry partnerships are a crucial element. Governments can create a friendly environment for interaction and innovation, but the potential for fruitful interaction also largely depends on the individual capabilities of each innovation actor. This IIEP publication explores the roles and modes of government intervention in the enhancement of academia-industry partnerships in three countries - China, Poland, and the Republic of Korea. These countries form contrasting cases along the state-market continuum. They also represent an interesting variety of roles played by governments in the regulation of research and development policies and academia-industry linkages. The book identifies three major approaches used by these countries for the support of academia-industry partnerships - orchestration, planning and substitution.
... This is considered an important location advantage in Dunning's (1993) OLI framework, but nowadays, the EU is 28 country club that follows the global tendency of trade liberalization in line with WTO rules. Moreover, companies in transition countries have built their competencies in the period of socialism and can hardly win an open market battle with experienced companies of a developed Europe in a single market (Radosevic, 2004). ...
This research challenges the contemporary view of economic policy makers in transition European economies that the EU integration process will lead to a greater inflow of Foreign Direct Investments (FDI), thereby increasing living standards. With the Brexit referendum, the integration of the EU has been threatened by a distressing existential question: is EU membership valuable for transition countries if even developed countries (like the UK) vote to leave or decided not to align like Switzerland and Norway in the past? Our analysis considers the success of several countries in Eastern Europe in attracting and benefiting from FDI on their way to EU membership. Analyzing a 13-year panel data of 16 transition countries, we found no statistically significant positive association between FDI inflow and EU accession. We argue, that it is also important to consider the welfare for domestic economies that can emerge from those investments. We illustrate this through the case study of a successful combination of institutional development and local content policies implementation accompanied by sufficient FDI inflows in a non-EU country - Kazakhstan.
... Slovenia is in a category of its own; it is not only the most advanced country in an economic sense but also in terms of the dynamism of its innovation system: Slovenia devoted 2.7% of GDP to R&D in 2013, one of the highest ratios in the EU. Of course, the growth and innovation capacity of a country depends not only on the supply of R&D but also on the country's ability to absorb and diffuse technology, combined with demand for its generation and utilization (Radosevic, 2004). Aggregating these four dimensions gives the national innovation capacity (NIC) index. ...
Southeast European (Chapter 10) economies are at different stages of EU integration, which remains a common goal, even if countries are at very different stages: whereas Slovenia has been part of the Eurozone since 2007, Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the EU only entered into force in June 2015. In July 2014, all non-EU countries in the region announced their decision to join the EU’s Horizon 2020 programme.
Slovenia is often considered a leader in the region. Its GERD/ GDP ratio rose from 1.63% to 2.59% between 2008 and 2013, albeit within a contracting GDP. Slovenia is also the only country in Southeast Europe where business enterprises fund and perform the majority of R&D. Although business R&D has stagnated in most other countries, R&D intensity has risen in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Serbia; as of 2012, it was close to 1% in Serbia (0.91), which was also performing better in innovation surveys. However, even the more industrialized countries of Croatia and Serbia suffer from weak university–industry linkages. Strong growth in the number of doctorate-holders has enabled researcher density to grow in most countries.
In 2013, governments adopted the SEE 2020 Strategy mirroring its EU namesake, in which they commit to raising their R&D intensity and boosting the size of their highly skilled labour force. This strategy is complemented by the Western Balkans Regional Research and Development Strategy for Innovation (2013) promoting technology transfer from public research organizations to the private sector and greater collaboration with industry; it advocates smart specialization in high-opportunity areas, such as ‘green’ innovation and energy, and includes a component promoted by the UNESCO Institute for Statistics of bringing the region’s statistics up to EU standards by 2018.
... There is a general agreement that countries investing in the Research & Technological Development & Innovation (RTDI) are rewarded by high rates of economic growth and per capita income. This opinion is supported via a number of empirical studies (Radosevic, 2004). The European Regional Innovation Scoreboard (RIS), for example, indicated that about 41 per cent of the variation in per capita regional income can be explained by differences in innovative performance (EC, 2003). ...
This paper analyses impacts of the Structural Funds implementation on fostering RTDI in Slovakia. It explores absorption of the Research & Technological Development & Innovation (RTDI) investments from Structural Funds in different types of Slovak regions and analyses it via in-depth interviews with the experts on RTDI policies and professionals involved in implementation of the Structural Funds in Slovakia. Concluding section summarises findings from statistical data and interviews, and discusses policy options for implementation of the StructuralFunds in planningperiod of 2007 - 2013.
... Multinationals active in Slovakia had high rates of R&D spending and introduced topnotch technologies. This was a highly positive trend, as growth and innovation capacity of an economy depends not only on the supply of R&D, but also on the capability to absorb and diffuse technology and demand for its generation and utilization (Radosevic, 2004). ...
This paper analyses development of the private R&D system in Slovakia after 1989. In 1990s, Slovakia experienced a painful economic transition, privatization and influx of the foreign direct investment. These developments were major factors behind sharp fall in R&D spending and levels of innovativeness. Moreover, Slovakia became a dual economy. Branch-plants of multinational companies benefited from technology diffusion and accounted for high productivity levels. Domestic companies generated low demand on innovative solutions and competed with low costs of production. There, however, were some 'islands of excellence'. This was a case of the Zentiva pharmaceutical firm, which accounted for a distinctive system of R&D and innovation patterns. The Zentiva case study is analysed via patters of corporate governance, entry of a smart foreign investor and firm's international expansion. Concluding chapter summarises findings on role of FDI in fostering innovations and private R&D.
... Indeed, Kattel (2004) argued that Estonia has been extensively emulating the Finnish R&D governance system, but only those Finnish developments that are relevant in the current policy rhetoric -the network perspective -and underemphasising earlier historical and long-term developments that created the capacities and capabilities that form the foundations of the Finnish innovation system. Also, Radosevic (2004, also Radosevic and Reid 2006 argues that reliance on "network"-type policy measures may not lead to sustainable innovation capacities as the problems of the innovation systems in Eastern Europe are strongly linked to core capacities and capabilities of both science and industry. At the same time, the governance systems of science in these countries are dominated by values that centre on fundamental scientific excellence (a long-term policy goal) while short-term socio-economic needs are related to increasing the societal relevance of the systems (Radosevic and Lepori 2009). ...
This paper analyses a process where a catching-up economy, Estonia, has been designing the governance of the science and innovation system in the context of the institutional restructuring of Eastern Europe since the 1990s, influenced by international policy convergence in Europe and the US towards an optimal governance system. This is based on a move from the "public good" to the "network" rationale and a policy emphasis on increasing the direct and short-term societal relevance of science and innovation systems. The paper analyses the levels of convergence vs. divergence of the Estonian governance system and argues that the over-emphasis on policy features in the international policy debates has brought about an underemphasis on crucial structural features of the governance system. The paper concludes that there are different levels of convergence and divergence that matter, and the Estonian science and innovation system faces both policy and also even more important structural challenges in making the governance system more responsive to socio-economic needs.
We employ the conceptual framework of “N-tuple helices” and devise a composite indicator, namely SFIGA (Society-Finance-Industry-Government-Academia), that aims at measuring the innovation performance of 24 OECD European countries from 2008 to 2017. We also investigate the effects of actors-helices on GDP per capita. The preliminary results from panel data regressions (OLS, quantile, and GMM) indicate their decisive economic importance as key actors of national innovation systems. However, the negative impact of academia on economic growth may explain a highly required resource allocation for basic research in the “knowledge economy” era. Its potential positive economic effects probably require time and patience.
Absorptive capacity (ACAP) as a function of systematic knowledge management is widely recognized as the catalyst for successful innovation performance in firms, particularly when it comes to identifying business opportunity information from the outside world and assimilating it into a firm’s innovation process. The concept of absorptive capacity became a widely researched topic in the area of organization and management, consequently, the definition of the ACAP components, its operationalization and outcomes, is extremely heterogeneous and has greatly affected the research production on ACAP. Therefore, the question arising is: Which approach to absorptive capacity will enable its being truly recognized as a concept at a global level, and in which areas of economy and business is ACAP most frequently encountered, particularly when it is connected to innovation processes? Based on a sample of 1288 papers within Web of Science Core Collection, this paper presents a bibliometric analysis of relevant publications on ACAP with the specific aim of gaining a deeper insight into the relevance of the impact of absorptive capacity on a firm’s innovation strategy. The results were systematized in a form of quantitative bibliographic review. The purpose of the analysis was to determine the existing level of the empirical and theoretical efforts in the research on ACAP, with a particular focus on firms and their innovation processes as well as knowledge management processes.
Absorptive capacity (ACAP) as a function of systematic knowledge management is widely recognized as the catalyst for successful innovation performance in firms, particularly when it comes to identifying business opportunity information from the outside world and assimilating it into a firm’s innovation process. The concept of absorptive capacity became a widely researched topic in the area of organization and management, consequently, the definition of the ACAP components, its operationalization and outcomes, is extremely heterogeneous and has greatly affected the research production on ACAP. Therefore, the question arising is: Which approach to absorptive capacity will enable it is being truly recognized as a concept at a global level, and in which areas of economy and business is ACAP most frequently encountered, particularly when it is connected to innovation processes? Based on a sample of 1288 papers within Web of Science Core Collection, this paper presents a bibliometric analysis of relevant publications on ACAP with the specific aim of gaining a deeper insight into the relevance of the impact of absorptive capacity on a firm’s innovation strategy. The results were systematized in a form of quantitative bibliographic review. The purpose of the analysis was to determine the existing level of the empirical and theoretical efforts in the research on ACAP, with a particular focus on firms and their innovation processes as well as knowledge management processes.
Since it is not enough just to achieve economic development, we should strive for sustainable development over a longer period and base it on innovation. It is an extremely important factor of economic and sustainable development. It is particularly important to innovate those economic activities that are crucial for sustainable development and where there are comparative advantages. Because of that, the aim of this paper is to prove that innovation is the key to success and achieving sustainable development. The cluster analysis has highlighted innovative leaders and learners. The Republic of Serbia is a country where agriculture is one of the most important economic activities. In terms of agricultural productivity, it not only lags behind innovative leaders, but also behind other countries of Southeast Europe, distinguished as innovative learners. In addition, in terms of innovation in agriculture, it significantly lags behind other economic activities at the national level, so that special attention should be paid to this issue.
The data show that there is a significant and persistent gap in innovation performance between new and old EU Member States. Most of Eastern European countries (EEC) are moderate innovators, except for Slovenia, while Bulgaria and Romania belong steadily to modest innovators. Obviously the new member states face more challenges in creating and implementing effective innovation policies. Therefore, the goal of this paper is to analyze biases in innovation policy of the new member states (NMS), including Bulgaria, and to suggest some measures to overcome these. It includes an analysis of EU and national EEC innovation policies, investigation of main theoretical approaches underpinning these policies, effects of path-dependency, innovation policy biases, the role of transnational corporations, global value chains, and human capital. It concludes with some propositions to the improvement of EEC’ innovation policies. The necessity of such research originates from the fact that often the EEC policymakers accept uncritically the elements of innovation policy from more developed countries without considering the specificity of local context. The uncritical acceptance of “best practices” approach leads inevitably to biased innovation policies. For example, the EEC innovation policies tend to be based on rather linear understanding of innovation with an accent on R&D and high-tech sectors at the expense of demand-side and medium- and low-tech sectors. It seems that these countries fall into the so-called “periphery paradox”. It consists in policy efforts to promote innovation, which are however detached from efforts to strengthen the local actors (firms, universities, and institutions) which demand and offer the knowledge for innovation. This way the innovation policy addresses missing actors. In order to close the innovation performance gap between old and new EU member states there is a need to modify the innovation policies in EEC as the prevailing R&D based model is less relevant compared to a model of creating local innovation capabilities
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to analyse the relationship between the three components of intellectual capital (IC) (human, structural, and relational), and contextual factors relating to organisational climate (OC) and innovation culture, together with their influence on business performance (BP).
Design/methodology/approach
This empirical research is based on an online questionnaire, which collected data from a non-probability quota sample consisting of 253 Croatian SMEs. The scales for IC, OC, and innovation culture were constructed to test the relationship between these dimensions and assess the BP of the SMEs.
Findings
Based on a survey on 253 SMEs in Croatia, the analysis shows that the key dimensions of IC, innovation culture, and OC are vital to a company’s success and are strongly inter-correlated. Higher BP is positively related to higher levels of both IC and innovation culture.
Research limitations/implications
The main limitation of the research is the subjective aspect of the study. The data used in the study were self-reported where respondents in a survey gave their assessment of firm performance. Although this was necessary because of the absence of other data, it is an issue that must be taken into account when interpreting the findings in the study.
Practical implications
Understanding the role of IC, OC, and innovation culture in relation to BP, particularly in former transition countries, can have important implications for managers and enterprise owners, as well as policy makers and the academic community.
Social implications
The findings emphasise the important role of tacit knowledge in the innovation process, of which IC and OC are good examples.
Originality/value
This empirical study brings evidence from the understudied country of Croatia. Croatia is a post-transitional country and the last accessed member of the EU, on the dividing line between a modest and a moderate innovator. This is the first empirical study conducted in Croatia that explores the association between three concepts that are typically investigated separately (IC, OC, and innovation culture).
Purpose
Innovation plays a pivotal role in a national economy and in the research and development of science and technology. Because the elements, capability and development direction of innovation in various countries are dissimilar, national innovative capacity also varies by country. However, previous studies have predominantly measured national innovative capacity through empirical studies by using a single index of innovation output, ignoring that the forms of innovation are heterogeneous across countries and failing to examine the influence exerted by various innovation models on economic development. Thus, the purpose of this study is to fill this gap by using scientific driving force and technological driving force to present the influence of national innovative capacities on economic development.
Design/methodology/approach
This study used regression models to test the influence of different national innovative capacities (i.e. scientific and technological driving forces) on economic development and stability.
Findings
Using the data of 60 countries, this study determined that both scientific and technological driving forces influenced economic development; specifically, scientific driving force affected economic development through technological driving force. Moreover, both research paper quality and patent quality positively influenced economic stability, but patent quality was the mediator.
Originality/value
This study examined scientific output from both quantitative and qualitative perspectives to determine their influence on economic growth and particularly on economic stability, which lacks dedicated studies. This study strives to bridge this gap in the literature by asserting, from the concept of economic resilience, that high-quality science and technology can strengthen the stability of a country’s economy.
In this study, it is aimed to compare of indicators Global Summary Innovation Index (GSII), information and
communications technology expenditures of World countries. It is used World Bank indicators and applied the
Hierarchical Clustering Method, Discriminant Analysis and Correlation Analysis. As a result, it is seemed first
group countries; Bulgaria, Spain, Greece, Italy, Mexico, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Russia, second group
countries; Switzerland, Finland, United Kingdom, Japan, Singapore, Sweden and USA, third group contries;
Australia, Austira, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Denmark, France, Ireland, Netherland and Norway, fourth group
countries; China, Hungary, India and Slovak Republic, fifth group countries; Israel and Korea, sixth group
countries; Hong Kong and New Zealand; seventh group countries; Argentina, Brazil, Czech Republic, Turkey
and South Africa. It is found that high correlation between GSII and per capita of technologic expenditures is
0.8702085, correlation between GSII and % of GDP is 0.4144508, correlation of GDP and per capita of
technologic expenditures is 0.4296516.
This report is the second of two studies examining the level of development of and the key challenges for innovation policy in the countries currently in the process of accession to the European Union. The first study was carried out during the period June 2000 to September 2001 and covered the so-called Luxembourg Group (Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia, or CC6). This second study was completed during the 15-month period from October 2001 and concerns the so-called Helsinki group (Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Romania, the Slovak Republic and Turkey, or CC7). The analysis was carried out in parallel with the conclusion of the accession negotiations with 10 of the 13 candidate countries. The study team carried out an exhaustive analysis of information and data on innovation performance and the policy framework for innovation in each of the candidate countries. This analysis takes into account the opinions and views of over 300 key stakeholders in the CC7 (public authorities, innovation support organisations and the business community) collected at national level through interviews, an innovation policy workshop and an opinion survey.
This paper explores several potential factors, which can explain an intriguing puzzle observed in Hungary: there are a large number of apparently relevant policy schemes to foster RTDI activities, and yet, innovation performance is rather poor. To indicate the dimensions of this “Hungarian paradox”, first the breadth of policy measures is presented, followed by an overview of the economic and innovation performance in international comparison. Then six factors are considered, leading to a conclusion that several of them should be combined for a plausible explanation. The most important one of these factors, however, points outside the narrowly defined STI policy domain: the framework conditions for innovations seem to play a decisive role. These conditions influence firms’ innovation activities with such a power that STI policy schemes cannot offer strong enough incentives to overrule their unfavourable effects. This conclusion, however, should not be used as an excuse for overlooking the impacts of the current practices in STI policy-making: the efficacy and efficiency of this decision-making system has also been far from satisfactory. Combing these two major explanatory factors, there seems to be no ‘panacea’ or a ‘simple, quick fix’ to improve RTDI performance by introducing 2-3 new STI policy measures. On the contrary, substantial efforts are needed, based on a comprehensive approach, both at a level of strategy making processes, and at the level of policy design and implementation.
Innovation is uppermost in the minds of decision makers across Europe. In recent years, the connection between innovation and gender has attracted increased interest among policymakers, researchers, and business leaders. There is considerable interest in the design of new measures to get more women involved in technology and process innovations in the business enterprise sector. In the policymaking context, innovation is considered a prerequisite for economic growth (Danilda and Thorslund, 2011).
This book uniquely applies the Schumpeterian innovation policy perspective to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. A broadly defined framework of the science, technology, innovation and growth system underpins the empirical and conceptual analysis of the critical issues including demand, FDI, finance and education. © Slavo Radosevic and Anna Kaderabkova 2011. All rights reserved.
The paper argues that the most effective model to evaluate the enterprise innovative capacity subject to an uncertainty factor is the model based on the fuzzy sets theory. The model has obvious advantages in comparison with the expert and statistical methods of evaluation, since it allows minimizing the evaluation errors.
https://books.google.ee/books?hl=en&lr=&id=0SiCz2KWUAoC&oi=fnd&pg=PA23&dq=Consequences+of+EU+enlargement+for+economic+development+in+border+regions&ots=w071C9U87K&sig=ylVL_nRiitng0JW4We1rBN8btZE&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Consequences%20of%20EU%20enlargement%20for%20economic%20development%20in%20border%20regions&f=false
Innovation and technical change play significant roles in both firm and economic growth, resulting in the creation of knowledge and the formation of new products. Due to the competitive aspects of innovation, firms often interact with and share and/or exchange information with other organizations, including other firms and universities, to further their innovative pursuits. Additionally, other factors, such as laws, cultural norms, and social rules, impact a firm's innovative abilities and behaviors. Organizations and institutions, economic infrastructures, sectoral innovation systems, and national imaginations all have a role in innovation systems. This edited work is composed of 17 essays, providing differing perspectives. To better understand the systems of innovation approach to business, this book examines three significant issues: part one dissects conceptual problems related to the theory of the systems of innovation approach; part two discusses the relationship between the systems of innovation approach and other innovation theories; and part three promotes greater understanding of the dynamics of systems of innovation. The various systems of innovation approaches have nine common characteristics: innovations and learning at the center of focus; holistic and interdisciplinary; historical perspective; differences between regional systems (no optimal system); interdependence; encompasses both technological and organizational innovations; institutions are central; conceptual ambiguity; and conceptual frameworks rather than formal theories. The creation and distribution of technological knowledge, including interindustry differences, are also explored. Evolutionary theories of economics and the ways in which they influence the systems of innovation approach are examined. The influence of policy upon technological change is also discussed, as are Technological and institutional change as components in the creation and change of innovation systems. Challenges to the systems approach are examined, including policy-based challenges to firms, paradigmatic shifts in innovation systems, and differences among European systems of innovation. (AKP)
In this paper, we argue that the ability of a firm to recognize the value of new, external information, assimilate it, and apply it to commercial ends is critical to its innovative capabilities. We label this capability a firm's absorptive capacity and suggest that it is largely a function of the firm's level of prior related knowledge. The discussion focuses first on the cognitive basis for an individual's absorptive capacity including, in particular, prior related knowledge and diversity of background. We then characterize the factors that influence absorptive capacity at the organizational level, how an organization's absorptive capacity differs from that of its individual members, and the role of diversity of expertise within an organization. We argue that the development of absorptive capacity, and, in turn, innovative performance are history- or path-dependent and argue how lack of investment in an area of expertise early on may foreclose the future development of a technical capability in that area. We formulate a model of firm investment in research and development (R&D), in which R&D contributes to a firm's absorptive capacity, and test predictions relating a firm's investment in R&D to the knowledge underlying technical change within an industry. Discussion focuses on the implications of absorptive capacity for the analysis of other related innovative activities, including basic research, the adoption and diffusion of innovations, and decisions to participate in cooperative R&D ventures.
The author explores the relationship of industrial innovation and economic development in terms of economic investment in new processes and materials, the effects of technology on firm size, and the role of public policy in fostering technology and stimulating employment. Each of these areas is treated in a separate section. Excerpts from The Measurement of Scientific and Technical Activities appears in the appendix. 473 references, 30 footnotes, 13 figures, 35 tables (DCK)
The measurement of productivity is a complex task. The OECD has recently released a comprehensive manual or guide to the measurement of industry-level and aggregate productivity. In the fifth article, Paul Schreyer from the OECD and the author of the OECD productivity manual provides an overview of the manual. He highlights a number of the key issues addressed in the manual, including: the choice of gross output versus value added productivity measures; the need for independence of output from input measures; the importance of adjusting for quality change in existing goods and accounting for new goods in price indices; methods of capturing the skill composition of labour; measurement of capital input; and the interpretation of productivity measures. In terms of the research and development agenda for productivity statistics, Schreyer identifies four priorities: better price indices for output measures by industry, particularly for high technology industries and difficult-to-measure services industries; better data on hours worked by industry; improvement in the quality of data on capital input; and improved input-output tables.
The paper decomposes GDP both in terms of level per capita and growth rate, so as to identify the sources of income differences and of economic growth for all EU27 member states. This accounting approach has multiple advantages, although a number of substantial caveats should be borne in mind when interpreting the results. In particular, the detailed accounting approach helps distinguish exogenous from policy-influenced growth drivers. The combination of lower per-hour productivity and lower labour utilisation is the cause of relatively low per capita GDP in euro area and EU15 countries, while weak productivity remains the main concern in the new member states. GDP growth rate has been broken down into 12 items, including an indicator of labour quality, based upon the composition of employment by educational attainment.
The output contractions during the initial transition stages in the Baltics and in Russia and the other CIS countries are examined across several dimensions, and the reliability of the available official statistics evaluated. The depth, length and breadth of the contractions are studied and set against a longer-run historical perspective. The relationship between inputs and outputs as described in a standard accounting framework shows that there is more to the contractions than collapsing investment and shrinking employment. Sharp declines in productivity, reflecting in part transition-related factors, also played a major role.
The authors assume that firms invest in R&D not only to generate innovations, but also to learn from competitors and extraindustry knowledge sources (e.g., university and government labs). This argument suggests that the ease of learning within an industry will both affect R&D spending, and condition the influence of appropriability and technological opportunity conditions on R&D. For example, they show that, contrary to the traditional result, intraindustry spillovers may encourage equilibrium industry R&D investment. Regression results confirm that the impact of appropriability and technological opportunity conditions on R&D is influenced by the ease and character of learning. Copyright 1989 by Royal Economic Society.
With the publication of his best-selling books "Competitive Strategy (1980) and "Competitive Advantage (1985), Michael E. Porter of the Harvard Business School established himself as the world's leading authority on competitive advantage. Now, at a time when economic performance rather than military might will be the index of national strength, Porter builds on the seminal ideas of his earlier works to explore what makes a nation's firms and industries competitive in global markets and propels a whole nation's economy. In so doing, he presents a brilliant new paradigm which, in addition to its practical applications, may well supplant the 200-year-old concept of "comparative advantage" in economic analysis of international competitiveness. To write this important new work, Porter and his associates conducted in-country research in ten leading nations, closely studying the patterns of industry success as well as the company strategies and national policies that achieved it. The nations are Britain, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States. The three leading industrial powers are included, as well as other nations intentionally varied in size, government policy toward industry, social philosophy, and geography. Porter's research identifies the fundamental determinants of national competitive advantage in an industry, and how they work together as a system. He explains the important phenomenon of "clustering," in which related groups of successful firms and industries emerge in one nation to gain leading positions in the world market. Among the over 100 industries examined are the German chemical and printing industries, Swisstextile equipment and pharmaceuticals, Swedish mining equipment and truck manufacturing, Italian fabric and home appliances, and American computer software and movies. Building on his theory of national advantage in industries and clusters, Porter identifies the stages of competitive development through which entire national economies advance and decline. Porter's finding are rich in implications for both firms and governments. He describes how a company can tap and extend its nation's advantages in international competition. He provides a blueprint for government policy to enhance national competitive advantage and also outlines the agendas in the years ahead for the nations studied. This is a work which will become the standard for all further discussions of global competition and the sources of the new wealth of nations.
Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital presents a novel interpretation of the good and bad times in the economy, taking a long-term perspective and linking technology and finance in an original and convincing way.
Expert case studies This book is about national systems of technological innovation. The heart of the book consists of studies of 17 countries, including the large market-oriented industrialized countries, several smaller high-income countries, and a number of newly industrialized states. The studies have been carefully designed, developed and written to illuminate the institutions and mechanisms supporting technological innovation in the various countries, the similarities and differences across countries, and how these came to be.
Advanced economies have experienced a tremendous increase in material well-being since the industrial revolution. Modern innovations such as personal computers, laser surgery, jet airplanes, and satellite communication have made us rich and transformed the way we live and work. But technological change has also brought with it a variety of social problems. It has been blamed at various times for increasing wage and income inequality, unemployment, obsolescence of physical and human capital, environmental deterioration, and prolonged recessions. To understand the contradictory effects of technological change on the economy, one must delve into structural details of the innovation process to analyze how laws, institutions, customs, and regulations affect peoples' incentive and ability to create new knowledge and profit from it. To show how this can be done, Philippe Aghion and Peter Howitt make use of Schumpeter's concept of creative destruction, the competitive process whereby entrepreneurs constantly seek new ideas that will render their rivals' ideas obsolete. Whereas other books on endogenous growth stress a particular aspect, such as trade or convergence, this book provides a comprehensive survey of the theoretical and empirical debates raised by modern growth theory. It develops a powerful engine of analysis that sheds light not only on economic growth per se, but on the many other phenomena that interact with growth, such as inequality, unemployment, capital accumulation, education, competition, natural resources, international trade, economic cycles, and public policy.
This paper introduces a model of the diffusion of process innovations. It predicts that the inter- firm diffusion curve, showing the proportion of firms having adopted a given innovation, will follow either a cumulative normal time path for major and technically complex innovations or a cumulative lognormal time path for simpler and less expensive innovations. This prediction is tested, with satisfactory results, against data on the diffusion of various innovations in the U.K. The model also provides a limited explanation of why some firms adopt faster than others and identifies a number of factors which will determine the aggregate speed of diffusion.
While existing literature examined the impact of intellectual property protection on the volume of foreign direct investment (FDI), little is known about its effect on the composition of FDI inflows. This paper addresses this question empirically using a unique firm-level data set from Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. It finds that weak protection deters foreign investors in technology-intensive sectors that rely heavily on intellectual property rights. Moreover, the results indicate that a weak intellectual property regime encourages investors to undertake projects focusing on distribution rather than local production.
This paper presents an index of patent rights for 110 countries for the period 1960–1990. The index is used to examine what factors or characteristics of economies determine how strongly patent rights will be protected. The evidence does indicate that more developed economies tend to provide stronger protection. But the underlying factors which influence patent protection levels are the country's level of research and development (R&D) activity, market environment, and international integration, which are correlated with its level of development. The results qualify, however, that R&D activity influences patent protection levels after a nation's research sector reaches a critical size. An implication of this is that to raise patent protection levels in weakly protecting countries, it is important to foster a significant research base in those countries and thereby create incentives for protecting patent rights.
Incl. bibliographical notes and references, index, biographical note on the author
Since the end of World War II, economists have tried to figure out how poor countries in the tropics could attain standards of living approaching those of countries in Europe and North America. Attempted remedies have included providing foreign aid, investing in machines, fostering education, controlling population growth, and making aid loans as well as forgiving those loans on condition of reforms. None of these solutions has delivered as promised. The problem is not the failure of economics, William Easterly argues, but the failure to apply economic principles to practical policy work. In this book Easterly shows how these solutions all violate the basic principle of economics, that people—private individuals and businesses, government officials, even aid donors—respond to incentives. Easterly first discusses the importance of growth. He then analyzes the development solutions that have failed. Finally, he suggests alternative approaches to the problem. Written in an accessible, at times irreverent, style, Easterly's book combines modern growth theory with anecdotes from his fieldwork for the World Bank.
This paper examines the recent literature on economic growth with a focus on policy issues and evidence relevant to OECD countries. The review begins with an overview of developments in the theory of economic growth and also comments generally on the nature of evidence exploring the influences on growth. This is followed by an examination of issues relating to the link between growth and factors of production (physical and human capital). The third section of the paper assesses the evidence linking a number of other factors (or ‘framework conditions’) to growth, namely: macroeconomic policy; finance; trade and competition policy; ‘social capital’; and, population and health issues ...
Ce document examine la littérature récente sur la croissance économique en particulier sur les aspects empiriques et de politiques économique concernant les pays de l'OCDE. L’étude commence par une vue d'ensemble des développements de la théorie de la croissance économique et présente également des observations générales sur la nature des recherches sur les déterminants de la croissance. Suit un examen des implications relatives aux liens entre la croissance et les facteurs de production (capital humain et physique). La troisième section du document évalue les implications des liens entre un certain nombre d'autres facteurs ('conditions cadres’) à la croissance, à savoir : la politique macro-économique ; la finance ; la politique du commerce et de la concurrence ; le 'capital sociétal' ; et les aspects liés à la population et la santé ...
Apervasive finding in recent research using longitudinal establishmentlevel data is that idiosyncratic factors dominate the distribution of output, employment, investment, and productivity growth rates across establishments. 1 Seemingly similar plants within the same industry exhibit substantially different behavior on a variety of measures of real activity at cyclical and longer-run frequencies. In the fastest-growing industries, a large fraction of establishments experience substantial declines, whereas in the slowest growing industries, a large fraction of establishments exhibit dramatic growth. During severe recessions virtually all industries decline, but within each industry a substantial fraction of establishments exhibit substantial growth. Likewise, during robust recoveries, a substantial fraction of establishments are contracting. Simply put, the underlying gross microeconomic changes in activity dwarf the net changes we observe, based on published aggregates. Table 1 provides a simple characterization of the dominance of within-sector factors in accounting for variation in growth rates across establishments. Table 1 is based on the computation of establishment-level growth rates during a 10-year period for employment, capital stocks, output, labor productivity, and total factor productivity for plants that appear in both
Using a unique firm-level dataset this study shows that, contrary to the hopes of transition economies, foreign investors in the region are characterized by low, rather than high, R&D intensity. The results also indicate that investors with higher R&D spending are more likely to engage in non-manufacturing projects than in local production. The empirical analysis links these findings to weak protection of intellectual property rights (IPRs). It shows that weak protection deters foreign investment. This negative effect is especially strong in those technology-intensive sectors that, according to surveys, rely heavily on IPRs. Weak IPR protection also encourages investors to undertake non-manufacturing projects rather than local production. The study contributes to the literature on transition, in which the issue of IPR protection has been neglected. It also adds to the literature on intellectual property rights by providing empirical evidence on the effect of IPR protection on the composition of FDI inflows.
Regional economic growth in Portugal has mainly been studied from the perspective of convergence with data ending by the early 2000’s. The country as a whole has stopped converging to the output levels of the richest European countries by this period and has also become one of the most unequal EU member-states in terms of income distribution in the meantime. It is thus important to analyze the growth performance at the regional level in a more recent period, 1995-2007, emphasizing regional disparities in inequality as explanatory factors. This study examines the relationship between inequality and regional growth in Portugal at NUTS III level exploring the explanatory power of earnings and education inequality measures computed with data from the Quadros de Pessoal database. The results point to a positive relationship between initial inequality and regional growth, stronger for education than for earnings inequality, but with earnings inequality measures revealing a higher explanatory power. Moreover, there is evidence that it is inequality at the top of the distribution that is the relevant to explain regional growth, a result that reinforces the higher propensities to save of the richer and the incentives mechanisms of transmission from inequality to growth. Additionally, the evidence does not support the existence of convergence among Portuguese NUTS III regions during the period under analysis. These findings are robust to the introduction of most additional control variables and the consideration of alternative measures of earnings and education inequality.
This paper constructs an indicator for the current level of international competitiveness of countries in transition. We find that Hungary is the most competitive country in the group while Turkmenistan is the least. Competitiveness measurement, in our view, is a way to use uniform criteria to gauge the extent to which a country makes use of various levers to promote sustained improvements in its well-being. We construct our measure of competitiveness drawing upon both the popular literature on competitiveness as well as modern economic theory. The approach acknowledges the importance of synergies between firms, markets, and government and, above all, the crucial role of institutions. Our choice of variables stresses the special characteristics of transition countries. By bringing to bear all the existing data on these countries, together with new survey data collected for the purpose, we are able to go beyond the mere ranking of countries to decompose the sources of competitiveness into their constituent parts. This allows policy makers to identify areas where their countries are lagging behind relative to other countries in their region. Our indicator is also compatible with the Global Competitiveness Report series categories, thus allowing us to benchmark transition countries against the rest of the world.
JEL classification: C82, O47, O57, P27, P52.
R&D and Productivity Slowdown: Is Recovery around the Corner?'. Mimeo Multivariate Data Analysis
- Z Griliches
- J H Slavo Radosevic Hair
- R E Anderson
- R T Tatham
- W C Black
Griliches, Z. (1997) 'R&D and Productivity Slowdown: Is Recovery around the Corner?'. Mimeo. SLAVO RADOSEVIC Hair, J.H., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.T. and Black, W.C. (1998) Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th edn (London: Prentice-Hall International).
R&D and Productivity Slowdown: Is Recovery around the Corner?
- Z Griliches
Griliches, Z. (1997) 'R&D and Productivity Slowdown: Is Recovery around the
Corner?'. Mimeo.
Benchmarking Enterprise Policy. First Results from the Scoreboard'. Commission Staff Working Document
Commission of the European Communities (2000) 'Benchmarking Enterprise Policy.
First Results from the Scoreboard'. Commission Staff Working Document, SEC
(2000)1842 (Brussels: CEC).
- M E Porter
- J D Sachs
- P K Cornelius
- J W Mcarthur
- K Schwab
Porter, M.E., Sachs, J.D., Cornelius, P.K., McArthur, J.W. and Schwab, K. (2002)
World Competitiveness Report 2001–2002 (New York: Oxford University Press).
Trendchart Innovation Scoreboard
Commission of the European Communities (2001) Trendchart Innovation Scoreboard 2001 (Luxembourg: CEC).
- OECD
- OECD
Economic Growth in the OECD Area: Recent Trends at the Aggregate and Sectoral Level '. Economic Department Working Papers
- S Scarpeta
- A Bassaninini
- D Pilat
- P Schreyer
- United Nations Industrial Development Organization
European Innovation Scoreboard 2002
- Commission of the European Communities