Germany Is Well Positioned for International Trade with Research-Intensive Goods

Germany is the world's biggest gross and net exporter of research-intensive goods, even ahead of the US and Japan. Per capita Germany also has the largest export surplus for research-intensive goods with around USD 3,900. Furthermore, Germany increasingly benefits as an importer - and thus as a user of technologies - from the international division of work. However, Germany's comparative advantages for research-intensive goods have declined in comparison to the middle of the 1990s. This is not due to a change in export specializations but rather to the tremendous increase in imports; this is reflected above all in the medium and low price segments where emerging markets have been catching up in research-intensive goods. After the financial market crisis had its impact on the real economy, it is now even more important to strengthen the innovative capabilities of German companies. The most important prerequisite of ensuring this is being equipped with R&D and human capital.International trade, Country and industry studies of trade, Industrialization, Manufacturing and service industries, Choice of technology

Germany's Technological Specialization Assures Growth Opportunities

Germany's economic profile gives reason to believe that the country will emerge strengthened from the current economic crisis. Germany boasts the world's highest share of value-added output attributable to (R&D) intensive goods and knowledge intensive services. At the same time, Germany possesses an extremely broad range of economic sectors that rely on R&D intensive goods and knowledge intensive services. German firms have strong competitive advantages in numerous industries, including vehicle manufacturing, chemicals, machine building, measurement and medical technologies, as well as business oriented services. Moreover, in relation to its important trading partners, Germany has a unique production portfolio. Although Germany's dependence on exports and specialization in the production of capital equipment has led to a sharp decline in demand in the current crisis, the country's orientation in R&D intensive technology represents a strong foundation for renewed growth as soon as the global economic climate improves. However, continued business investment in R&D during the recession is necessary if Germany hopes to emerge the crisis on sound footing-even if such investment does not generate revenues over the near term.Industrial specialization, Technological change

Exports: Orientation Towards Emerging Markets

Nearly 60 percent of globally traded industrial goods are R&D-intensive. Two fifths are goods with very high research intensity (cutting-edge technology), while the remaining three fifths are goods with high research intensity (high-level technology).1 Up until the 1990s, the USA was the global market leader. However, since then, the situation has changed in favor of Germany and remained so despite the recent economic crisis.2 In 2009, Germany exported R&D-intensive goods amounting to USD 670 billion. The two main competitors, the USA and Japan, exported goods worth USD 561 and 388 billion respectively. The new Central and Eastern European EU member states, which increasingly focus on the production of R&D-intensive goods, reached a value of USD 189 billion altogether. The situation on the import side is reversed: Here the US market dominates with imports worth USD 756 billion, while Germany comes second with USD 430 Billion.International Trade, country and industry studies of trade, manufacturing. - industries

Deutschland im Außenhandel mit forschungsintensiven Waren gut aufgestellt

Deutschland ist größter Brutto- und Nettoexporteur von forschungsintensiven Waren, noch vor den USA und Japan. Auch pro Kopf weist Deutschland mit rund 3 900 US-Dollar den größten Exportüberschuss bei forschungsintensiven Waren auf. Zudem profitiert Deutschland als Importeur und somit als Anwender von Technologien zunehmend von der internationalen Arbeitsteilung. Die komparativen Vorteile Deutschlands bei forschungsintensiven Waren sind jedoch im Vergleich zur Mitte der 90er Jahre zurückgegangen. Dieses ist nicht auf eine Veränderung in der Exportspezialisierung zurückzuführen, sondern auf die kräftig gestiegenen Importe, in denen sich auch das Aufholen von Schwellenländern mit forschungsintensiven Waren vor allem im mittleren und niedrigen Preissegment widerspiegelt. Nachdem sich die Finanzmarktkrise auch auf die Realwirtschaft ausgewirkt hat, kommt es nun noch mehr darauf an, die Innovationskraft der deutschen Unternehmen weiter zu stärken. Die wichtigste Voraussetzung dafür ist eine gute Ausstattung mit FuE- und Humankapital.International trade, Country and industry studies of trade, Industrialization, Manufacturing and service industries, Choice of technology

Taugt das deutsche Modell als Vorbild?

Zu den Verpflichtungen der Mitglieder im Europäischen Fiskalpakt gehört unter anderem, eine nationale Schuldenbremse einzuführen – eine Regel zur Begrenzung der jährlichen Neuverschuldung. Deutschland ist diesen Schritt bereits gegangen. Im vorliegenden Beitrag überprüfen wir, inwieweit das deutsche Modell als Vorbild für andere Staaten des Euroraums taugt. Wir hinterfragen dazu, ob es Regierungen und Parlamente im Aufnehmen von Schulden wirksam einschränkt. Besondere Aufmerksamkeit schenken wir dem Verfahren zur Konjunkturbereinigung. Auf Grundlage eigener Ex-Post-Simulationen kommen wir zu dem Ergebnis, dass es Regierungen und Parlamenten erhebliche Verschuldungsspielräume einräumt, die dem Ziel einer Schuldengrenze zuwiderlaufen. Ähnliche Zweifel an der Zielgenauigkeit der im deutschen Modell gefundenen Regelungen begründen wir im Hinblick auf die Bereinigung um finanzielle Transaktionen, Ausnahmen in Notsituationen und den Stabilitätsrat. Wir gehen ferner darauf ein, wie Staaten das Modell im Sinne eines (noch) wirksameren Mechanismus weiterentwickeln könnten

Deficits in Education Endanger Germany's Innovative Capacity

The innovative capacity of advanced industrial countries is their most important source of prosperity and growth. DIW Berlin has investigated Germany's innovative capacity for the fourth time in an international comparative survey. The survey evaluates the ability of countries to create and transform knowledge into marketable products and services (i.e., innovations) using a system of indicators that provides an overall composite indicator of innovative capacity as well as a detailed profile of strengths and weaknesses. Of the seventeen leading industrial nations investigated under the survey, Germany only ranked 8th, as it did in 2007, thus remaining in the broad middle range. Relative to its most important competitors Germany was unable to improve its position. Sweden, the US, Switzerland, Finland, and Denmark headed up the list. Germany is particularly successful in international markets for new products and services and in its ability to network key participants in the innovation process. Deficiencies in Germany's educational system and in the financing conditions for innovation and the founding of new companies remain the country's two greatest weaknesses. Prospects are dim for the considerable improvement needed in these areas.Innovation system,Composite indicator,Industrialized countries

Exporte: Orientierung auf Zukunfsmärkte

Knapp 60 Prozent aller weltweit gehandelten Industriegüter sind forschungsintensiv. Zwei Fünftel davon sind Güter mit sehr hoher Forschungsintensität (Spitzentechnologie) und drei Fünftel Güter mit hoher Forschungsintensität (Hochtechnologie).1 Noch in den 90er Jahren waren die USA Weltmarktführer. Dieses Verhältnis hat sich seitdem jedoch zu Gunsten Deutschlands gewandelt.2 Daran hat auch die Wirtschaftskrise nichts geändert. Im Jahr 2009 exportierte Deutschland forschungsintensive Waren im Wert von 670 Milliarden US-Dollar. Die beiden Hauptkonkurrenten, USA und Japan, kamen lediglich auf Werte von 561 beziehungsweise 388 Milliarden US-Dollar. Die neuen mittel- und osteuropäischen EU-Länder, die zunehmend auch auf die forschungsintensive Güterproduktion setzen, kamen insgesamt auf einen Wert von 189 Milliarden US-Dollar. Anders sieht es bei den Importen aus: Hier bleibt der US-Markt mit 756 Milliarden US-Dollar weltweit dominierend, erst mit 430 Milliarden US-Dollar folgt Deutschland auf dem zweiten Platz (Tabelle 1).International Trade, country and industry studies of trade, manufacturing industries

Wissensintensive Branchen: Deutschland überholt bei der Wertschöpfung die USA

Deutschland hat sein Produktionsportfolio in der Periode von 1995 bis 2005 zugunsten forschungsintensiver Güter und wissensintensiver Dienstleistungen verbessert. Nicht zuletzt wegen dieser Spezialisierung sind deutsche Unternehmen auf den internationalen Märkten äußerst erfolgreich. Will Deutschland diese Position halten und ausbauen, muss die Forschungslandschaft auch weiterhin den Bedarf der erfolgreichen Investitionsgüterindustrien besonders berücksichtigen. Im Bildungsbereich sind Maßnahmen gegen die erwarteten Engpässe beim Humankapital ("Ingenieurmangel") zu ergreifen.Industrial specialization, Technological change

An Indicator for National Systems of Innovation - Methodology and Application to 17 Industrialized Countries

We develop a composite indicator measuring the performance of national innovation systems. The indicator takes into account both “hard” factors that are quantifiable (such as R&D spending, number of patents) and “soft” factors like the assessment of preconditions for innovation by managers. We apply the methodology to a set of 17 industrialized countries on a yearly basis between 2007 and 2009. The indicator combines results from public opinion surveys on the process of change, social capital, trust and science and technology to achieve an assessment of a country’s social climate for innovation. After calculating and ranking the innovation indictor scores for the 17 countries, we group them into three classes: innovation leader, middle group and end section. Using multiple sensitivity analysis approaches, we show that the indicator reacts robustly to different weights within these country groups. While leading countries like Switzerland, the USA and the Nordic countries have an innovation system with high scores and ranks in every sub indicator, the middle group consisting among others of Germany Japan, the UK and France, can be characterized by higher variation within ranks. In the end section, countries like Italy and Spain have bad scores for almost all indicators.National systems of innovation, Composite Indicators, Ranking

An Indicator for National Systems of Innovation: Methodology and Application to 17 Industrialized Countries

We develop a composite indicator measuring the performance of national innovation systems. The indicator takes into account both "hard" factors that are quantifiable (such as R&D spending, number of patents) and "soft" factors like the assessment of preconditions for innovation by managers. We apply the methodology to a set of 17 industrialized countries on a yearly basis between 2007 and 2009. The indicator combines results from public opinion surveys on the process of change, social capital, trust and science and technology to achieve an assessment of a country's social climate for innovation. After calculating and ranking the innovation indictor scores for the 17 countries, we group them into three classes: innovation leader, middle group and end section. Using multiple sensitivity analysis approaches, we show that the indicator reacts robustly to different weights within these country groups. While leading countries like Switzerland, the USA and the Nordic countries have an innovation system with high scores and ranks in every sub indicator, the middle group consisting among others of Germany Japan, the UK and France, can be characterized by higher variation within ranks. In the end section, countries like Italy and Spain have bad scores for almost all indicators.National systems of innovation, composite indicators, ranking