Innovation in Scotland : analysis of the community innovation survey 2009

Strengthening levels of innovation is one of the cornerstones of the Scottish Government‟s Economic Strategy. Innovation is a key catalyst for productivity growth as new ideas drive enterprise, create new products and markets and improve efficiency, delivering benefits to firms, customers and society. It is a crucial factor in determining competitiveness and national progress. Until recently, the most common and well known measure of innovation has been the ratio of national expenditure on R&D to GDP. Data shows that there has been a significant gap in business research and development (R&D) expenditure between Scotland and the UK, EU and OECD averages in recent years. Scottish Business Enterprise R&D (BERD) expenditure was 0.56% of Scottish GDP in 2009, lower than the rate for the UK as a whole (1.11%) and the EU (1.17%). Compared to other UK Government regions, Scotland ranked in 10th place out of the 12 regions. However, while R&D is useful for measuring technology-based activities, it is increasingly recognised that this is only one element of the broader concept of innovation and is frequently more relevant for manufacturing than for services. Evidence shows that firms introduce new products and services onto the market without necessarily performing R&D. A lot of innovation activity is based on (or embodied in) advanced machinery and computer systems purchased to implement new or improved processes and deliver new products and services. Innovation can also be purchased through rights to use patents, licences, trademarks and software. Innovation can also encompass training and new design and marketing processes. Evidence also shows that many firms adopt multiple, complementary innovation strategies, with the most innovative firms introducing both product and process innovations as well as marketing or organisational innovations. Therefore, productivity growth can be achieved through advances in technology combined with new approaches to creating and delivering of goods and services. There is now a solid body of evidence describing the relationship between research, innovation and economic development. The evidence suggests that investment in „intangible assets‟ that give rise to innovation (R&D, software, human capital and new organisational structures) now accounts for up to 12% of GDP in some countries and contributes as much to labour productivity growth as investment in tangible assets such as machinery and equipment. According to OECD estimates, investment in intangible assets accounted for around a quarter of labour productivity growth in the UK and other countries between 1995 and 2006. The Community Innovation Survey (CIS) allows an assessment of business innovation performance, wider than just R&D expenditure, across European Union countries. CIS collects a range of information from businesses on the types of innovation they are involved in, motivation for innovation, spending on a range of innovation activities beyond R&D, collaboration and linkages between businesses or with public research organisations, as well as data on sales from product innovations. In light of the growing recognition that innovation encompasses a wider range of activities, and that broader metrics are required to reflect this, the Innovation Survey provides a key data set to measure innovation within businesses

EU Cohesion Policy: A suitable tool to foster regional innovation? Bertelsmann Policy Paper, 2019

Across Europe, regions are divided into innovation leaders and moderate innovators – the latter referring to regions that lag behind in terms of prosperity and R&D activities. This innovation gap in turn threatens to reinforce the productivity gap between regions. The EU’s Cohesion Policy recently shifted its focus towards funding innovation to deal with these disparities. Is this strategy working

Innovation Indicators: for a critical reflection on their use in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs)

It has been widely recognized that innovation is an important driver of economic growth. Many Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) have adopted innovation indicators to monitor innovation performance and to evaluate the impact of innovation policies. This paper argues that innovation indicators should be customized to the different socio-economic structures of LMICs. For this, the definition of innovation needs to be relevant to the multitude of innovation actors and processes in LMICs. LMICs also need to build competences not only in the construction of innovation indicators within their statistical systems, but also in the use of these indicators by among others policy makers. Especially as the fourth edition of the Oslo Manual (OM 2018) has broadened the scope of “innovation”, opening up policy space for LMICs to accommodate the diversity in their national systems of innovation and to develop accompanying innovation indicators.JEL Classification Codes: O38, O32, O29, P47http://www.grips.ac.jp/list/jp/facultyinfo/iizuka-michiko

The administrative burden reduction policy boom in Europe: comparing mechanisms of policy diffusion

Much has been written on the diffusion of public management and regulatory reform tools. Available evidence suggests that cross-national policy diffusion is an increasingly significant phenomenon, especially in the European context. While internationalisation of policy discourses and expert communities are regarded as key driving forces of policy diffusion, public management reforms are also said to be particularly vulnerable to mechanisms of 'diffusion without convergence'. This paper analyses the case of policies aiming at reducing administrative burdens of regulations through the lens of the literature on policy diffusion. The diffusion of the so-called Standard Cost Model for measuring administrative burden between 2003 and 2007 is used as a case to explore the mechanisms facilitating policy diffusion in this domain. The analysis reveals patterns of rapid diffusion. This policy boom has been driven by a combination of different mechanisms of policy diffusion rather than by a single driving factor

Do Government Policies Foster Environmental Performance of Enterprises from CEE Region?

In recent years, EU countries, including these from the Central Eastern European (CEE) region has recognised, that eco-innovation should be treated as strategic priority of their economies. The aim of this paper is to present a cross-country analysis of the connection between eco-innovation and its main drivers within firms from selected CEE countries (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Romania) and Germany. The empirical part is based on micro-data for Community Innovation Survey (CIS) 2006-2008. Based on the results of stepwise regression between main policy actions sustaining innovation activity and eco-innovation performance we can conclude, that financial support for innovation activities has a rather limited role in promoting eco-innovation. At the same time enterprises from the CEE region regard environmental regulations as the most important drivers of eco-innovation. In Germany, a country ranked in the highest category in the Eco-Innovation Scoreboard, the variety of forces that influence eco-innovation is much more wide-ranging. This indicates that government actions should take a broader look and lay the more general bases fostering the model of a green growth

Regions, Innovation Systems, and the North-South Divide in Italy

Using firm-level data collected by Statistics Italy for 2008, 2011, and 2015, we examine the Triple-Helix synergy among geographical and size distributions of firms, and the NACE codes attributed to these firms, at the different levels of regional and national government. At which levels is innovation-systemness indicated? The contributions of regions to the Italian innovation system have increased, but synergy generation between regions and supra-regionally has remained at almost 45%. As against the statistical classification of Italy into twenty regions or into Northern, Central, and Southern Italy, the greatest synergy is retrieved by considering the country in terms of Northern and Southern Italy as two sub-systems, with Tuscany included as part of Northern Italy. We suggest that separate innovation strategies should be developed for these two parts of the country. The current focus on regions for innovation policies may to some extent be an artifact of the statistics and EU policies. In terms of sectors, both medium- and high-tech manufacturing (MHTM) and knowledge-intensive services (KIS) are proportionally integrated in the various regions

Productivity in services twenty years on. A review of conceptual and measurement issues and a way forward

Griliches' seminal contribution on "Output measurement in the service sectors" (1992) is now more than twenty years old. The aim of this paper is to review and systematise the scholarship that has been produced since, to identify any step forward in the conceptualisation of service output, the measurement of service productivity and the account of technical change in affecting productivity in services that might have occurred. An agenda for both innovation and service scholars is proposed

A Tale of Evaluation and Reporting in UK Smart Cities

Global trends towards urbanisation are associated with wide-ranging challenges and opportunities for cities. Smart technologies create new opportunities for a range of smart city development and regeneration programmes designed to address the environmental, economic and social challenges concentrated in cities. Whilst smart city programmes have received much publicity, there has been much less discussion about evaluation of smart city programmes and the measurement of their outcomes for cities. Existing evaluation approaches have been criticised as non-standard and inadequate, focusing more on implementation processes and investment metrics than on the impacts of smart city programmes on strategic city outcomes and progress. To examine this, the SmartDframe project conducted research on city approaches to the evaluation of smart city projects and programmes, and reporting of impacts on city outcomes. This included the ‘smarter’ UK cities of Birmingham, Bristol, Manchester, Milton Keynes and Peterborough. City reports and interviews with representative local government authorities informed the case study analysis. The report provides a series of smart city case studies that exemplify contemporary city practices, offering a timely, insightful contribution to city discourse about best practice approaches to evaluation and reporting of complex smart city projects and programmes

Can Synergy in Triple-Helix Relations be Quantified? A Review of the Development of the Triple-Helix Indicator

Triple-Helix arrangements of bi- and trilateral relations can be considered as adaptive eco-systems. During the last decade, we have further developed a Triple-Helix indicator of synergy as reduction of uncertainty in niches that can be shaped among three or more distributions. Reduction of uncertainty can be generated in correlations among distributions of relations, but this (next-order) effect can be counterbalanced by uncertainty generated in the relations. We first explain the indicator, and then review possible results when this indicator is applied to (i) co-author networks of academic, industrial, and governmental authors and (ii) synergies in the distributions of firms over geographical addresses, technological classes, and industrial-size classes for a number of nations. Co-variation is then considered as a measure of relationship. The balance between globalizing and localizing dynamics can be quantified. Too much synergy locally can also be considered as lock-in. Tendencies are different for the globalizing knowledge dynamics versus locally retaining wealth from knowledge in industrial innovations

Towards evaluation design for smart city development

Smart city developments integrate digital, human, and physical systems in the built environment. With growing urbanization and widespread developments, identifying suitable evaluation methodologies is important. Case-study research across five UK cities - Birmingham, Bristol, Manchester, Milton Keynes and Peterborough - revealed that city evaluation approaches were principally project-focused with city-level evaluation plans at early stages. Key challenges centred on selecting suitable evaluation methodologies to evidence urban value and outcomes, addressing city authority requirements. Recommendations for evaluation design draw on urban studies and measurement frameworks, capitalizing on big data opportunities and developing appropriate, valid, credible integrative approaches across projects, programmes and city-level developments