Innovativeness of Poland's Economy - Conditions and Prospects for Development

The structure of the article is as follows: the introduction is followed by an assessment of the level of innovativeness of Poland's economy, explanation of the reasons of poor innovativeness, and then the conditions for innovation in Poland are outlined with particular emphasis on strategic aspects and the final part presents synthetic conclusions derived from the analysis.Struktura artykułu przedstawia się następująco: po wprowadzeniu dokonano oceny poziomu innowacyjności polskiej gospodarki, następnie zarysowano warunki rozwoju innowacyjności w Polsce ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem aspektów strategicznych, a w zakończeniu zawarto syntetyczne wnioski płynące przeprowadzonej analizy

Cohesion policy at the interface between regional development and the promotion of innovation

Taking the implications of the cohesion policy framework for innovation governance as a starting point, it is the objective of this paper to discuss challenges for regional policy making with regard to a policy mix that is new to regional policy makers. Based on two German regions representing convergence and competitive and employment regions it will be discussed how regional policy makers can deal with this new policy approach and what could be appropriate strategies, programmes and learning tools. What can be seen from both the Bavarian and the Saxon case study is that the two regions apply a broad mix of different innovation policy measures, supporting all innovation policy tasks with relevance to regional development. In both regions innovation policy is not a new task, but Saxony as well as Bavaria can look back to a quite long tradition in the im-plementation of this policy. Differences exist with regard to policy learning in a way that due the longer innovation policy experiences of Bavaria more sophisticated structures and activities can be found in this federal state. --

Reforming the implementation of European structural funds: A next development step

The authors assess the performance of the Structural Funds’ implementation system in six Member States of the European Union. Considering the strengths and weaknesses, they develop a reform model for the implementation of European structural policy after 1999. The strengths of the existing implementation system lie mainly in innovation effects triggered by the Structural Funds' model of policy implementation. Its main weaknesses, inter alia, are an interwoven structure of the decision-making processes, an insufficient time management and a lack of in-built improvement loops in the implementation process. To overcome these shortcomings, the authors propose a strategic management and decentralisation model. It demands a de-coupling of strategic programming on the one hand, and detailed programming and implementation on the other. Under this model, the Commission and the Member State would negotiate on the strategic issues. In the framework of the agreement, the Member State together with the monitoring committees would be responsible for the implementation of the programmes. Strengthened feedback loops would help to assure the attainment of the strategic objectives. -- Die Autoren untersuchen die Leistungsfähigkeit des Implementationssystems der Strukturfondsförderung in sechs Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Union. Vor dem Hintergrund der Stärken und Schwächen entwickeln sie ein Reformmodell zur Implementation der Strukturfonds in der nächsten Förderperiode nach der Reform 1999. Die Stärken des bestehenden Implementationssystems liegen vor allem in den prozeduralen Innovationen, die z.T. auf das Politikmodell der Strukturfonds und seine Kopplung an mitgliedstaatliche Verwaltungsprozesse zurückgeführt werden können. Die wichtigsten Schwächen sind u.a. die verflochtene Struktur der Entscheidungsprozesse, ein ungenügendes Zeitmanagement und fehlende inhärente Verbesserungsmechanismen des Implementationsprozesses. Um diese Schwächen zu überwinden, schlagen die Autoren ein strategisches Management- und Dezentralisierungsmodell vor. Sein Kern besteht in der Trennung von strategischer Programmierung einerseits und Detailprogrammierung und Implementation andererseits. Die Europäische Kommission und der jeweilige Mitgliedstaat handeln demnach die strategischen Teile der Programme aus. Im Rahmen dieser strategischen Vereinbarung ist dann der Mitgliedstaat für die Detailprogrammierung und Umsetzung der Programme verantwortlich, wobei er vom Begleitausschuß unterstützt wird. Verstärkte Feedbackinstrumente tragen dazu bei, die Einhaltung der strategischen Vorgaben zu sichern.

An assessment of Multilevel Governance in Cohesion Policy, 2007-2013

This study offers a thorough overview of Multi-Level Governance in Cohesion Policy in the current programming period of 2007-2013 by examining the evolution of the concept in terms of its definition and conceptual framework, analysing the current processes of implementing Multi-Level Governance in the EU27, as well as describing the advantages and disadvantages of partnerships in policy-making. Moreover, the study aims to formulate strategic and operational recommendations in the context of the preparation of the 2014- 2020 programming perio

Disaster Resilience Education and Research Roadmap for Europe 2030 : ANDROID Report

A disaster resilience education and research roadmap for Europe 2030 has been launched. This roadmap represents an important output of the ANDROID disaster resilience network, bringing together existing literature in the field, as well as the results of various analysis and study projects undertaken by project partners.The roadmap sets out five key challenges and opportunities in moving from 2015 to 2030 and aimed at addressing the challenges of the recently announced Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. This roadmap was developed as part of the ANDROID Disaster Resilience Network, led by Professor Richard Haigh of the Global Disaster Resilience Centre (www.hud.ac.uk/gdrc ) at the School of Art, Design and Architecture at the University of Huddersfield, UK. The ANDROID consortium of applied, human, social and natural scientists, supported by international organisations and a stakeholder board, worked together to map the field in disaster resilience education, pool their results and findings, develop interdisciplinary explanations, develop capacity, move forward innovative education agendas, discuss methods, and inform policy development. Further information on ANDROID Disaster Resilience network is available at: http://www.disaster-resilience.netAn ANDROID Disaster Resilience Network ReportANDROI

NASA/DOD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. Paper 19: Computer and information technology and aerospace knowledge diffusion

To remain a world leader in aerospace, the US must improve and maintain the professional competency of its engineers and scientists, increase the research and development (R&D) knowledge base, improve productivity, and maximize the integration of recent technological developments into the R&D process. How well these objectives are met, and at what cost, depends on a variety of factors, but largely on the ability of US aerospace engineers and scientists to acquire and process the results of federally funded R&D. The Federal Government's commitment to high speed computing and networking systems presupposes that computer and information technology will play a major role in the aerospace knowledge diffusion process. However, we know little about information technology needs, uses, and problems within the aerospace knowledge diffusion process. The use of computer and information technology by US aerospace engineers and scientists in academia, government, and industry is reported