The Development of eServices in an Enlarged EU: eGovernment and eHealth in Poland

In 2005, IPTS launched a project which aimed to assess the developments in eGoverment, eHealth and eLearning in the 10 New Member States at national, and at cross-country level. At that time, the 10 New Member States were Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia. A report for each country was produced, describing its government and health systems and the role played by eGovernment and eHealth within these systems. Each report then analyzes, on the basis of desk research and expert interviews, the major achievements, shortcomings, drivers and barriers in the development of eGovernment and eHealth in one of the countries in question. This analysis provides the basis for the identification and discussion of national policy options to address the major challenges and to suggest R&D issues relevant to the needs of each country ¿ in this case, Poland. In addition to national monographs, the project has delivered a synthesis report, which offers an integrated view of the developments of each application domain in the New Member States. Furthermore, a prospective report looking across and beyond the development of the eGoverment, eHealth and eLearning areas has been developed to summarize policy challenges and options for the development of eServices and the Information Society towards the goals of Lisbon and i2010.JRC.J.4-Information Societ

Evaluating and comparing the innovative performance of the United States and the European Union. CES Working Papers Series 172, 2009

There are significant differences in the innovative capacities between the economies of the United States and European Union. The US was able to gain and maintain technological leadership, whereas most of the EU member states (with the exception of some Scandinavian economies) still lag behind in the competitiveness and innovation rankings. Several factors lie behind the differences in the US and EU innovative performance: the nature and dynamics of the R&D investments; differences in industrial structure of R&D; degree of internationalization and location of R&D investments; the linkage between inventions and the science base; the value of venture capital investment; geographical concentration of innovation activities. Thus, the evaluation of the differences in the competitiveness and innovation performance of the US and the EU must consider differences in their subject and space dimensions

The Role of Knowledge Absorption and Innovation Capability in the Technological Change and Economic Growth of EU Regions

The framework of the endogenous growth models and empirical evidence argue that two dimensions determine a region's ability to narrow its technological gap and improve its productivity growth. The first is its absorptive capacity, e.g. its ability to imitate foreign advanced technologies. The second is its innovative capability, namely the extent to which it is able to produce new, advanced knowledge. Thus, the narrowing knowledge absorption and innovation gaps between regions improve a region's productivity level and move it up the value chain towards specialization in knowledge-intensive and high value-added activities. The following paper attempts to contribute to the existing empirical findings and theoretical discussion on the inter-linkages between knowledge absorption, innovation capability, determined technological change, and economic growth of EU regions. The author's results show that despite the fact that the EU has a long tradition in education and new knowledge generation, there is a very modest ability to make EU regions more productive and grow them. The important role of productivity and knowledge-based sectors in improving EU regional prosperity suggests to carefully examine which knowledge activities drive productivity and the catching-up process of the EU regions. Overall, prospects for catching up will depend largely on how regions balance higher education and R&D priorities and place emphasis on the above activities. These results may be regarded as supportive of recent EU regional policy based on the Lisbon and Europe 2020 Strategies of Smart Growth

Innovation Systems and Learning Processes in the EU and US Regions

European regions suffer from weaker regional clusters and cluster portfolios than their peers in the United States (U.S.) or elsewhere in the world. The latter can be an important factor keeping them behind in global competition. The following research paper focuses both on regions as systems of innovation and as technology clusters. The selected case studies examine the development as well as structure and types of collaboration networks in the two leading Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) clusters in the U.S. and EU: Silicon Valley in California and Kista cluster of Stockholm Region in Sweden.

Innovation Systems and Learning Processes in the EU and US Regions

European regions suffer from weaker regional clusters and cluster portfolios than their peers in the United States (U.S.) or elsewhere in the world. The latter can be an important factor keeping them behind in global competition. The following research paper focuses both on regions as systems of innovation and as technology clusters. The selected case studies examine the development as well as structure and types of collaboration networks in the two leading Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) clusters in the U.S. and EU: Silicon Valley in California and Kista cluster of Stockholm Region in Sweden.