Differences in efficiency of innovation performance among EU candidate countries and EU 28 countries

Dr. Sc. Slagjana Stojanovska, Dr. Sc. Violeta Madzova

Abstract


The aim of this paper is to identify if there are differences in the efficiency of innovation performance between the two groups of countries: EU candidate countries such as Macedonia, Serbia and Turkey and the average level of innovation performance in EU-28 countries from 2010 - 2017. The further paper’s analysis aims to identify the most crucial factors and indicator that contribute to the efficiency of innovation performance in both groups of countries.

In that sense, the comparative analyses of the two observed groups of countries has been done, using   the European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS) data as well as 12 EIS indicators for the period 2010 - 2017. For benchmarking of the countries three indicators are created: sub-index Input Innovation (II), sub-index Output Innovation (OI) and the Innovation Efficiency Performance Index (IEPI).

The findings show that there is a difference in efficiency of innovation performance indicators between the observed two groups of countries, but as well as among each the EU candidate country. In fact, Macedonia (IEPI=2.33) has twice higher efficiency of transforming innovation inputs into innovation output unlike the EU28 countries (IEPI=1.17), Serbia (IEPI=1.06) and Turkey (IEPI=.24).

It can be noted as well that Macedonia managed to use its limited resources to input (sub-index II= 0.13) in much more efficient/productive way (IEPI= 2.33) and to obtain most output innovation (sub-index OI= 0.29). This paper’s findings can be used for designing better innovation policy in the observed EU candidate countries.


Keywords


efficiency; innovation performance; input; output; comparative analysis;

References


Adam, F. (2013). “Measuring national innovation performance: the Innovation Union Scoreboard revisited”, Springer Science & Business Media.

Arundel A, Bordoy C, Kanerva M. (2008). Neglected innovators: How do innovative firms that do not perform R&D innovate? Results of an analysis of the Innobarometer 2007 survey, No. 215, INNO-Metrics Thematic Paper, European Commission, DG Enterprise, Brussels, March 31

Brenner, T., Broekel, T. (2009). Methodological issues in measuring innovation performance of spatial units. Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography 09.04, Utrecht University. Avelable at: ftp://137.248.191.199/RePEc/pum/wpaper/WP3.pdf assessed on 20.01.2018

Cornell University, INSEAD, and WIPO. (2017). “The Global Innovation Index 2017: Innovation Feeding the World”, Ithaca, Fontainebleau, and Geneva.

Eggink, M.E. (2012). Innovation System Performance: How to address the Measurement of a System’s Performance, IBIMA Publishing, Journal of Innovation & Business Best Practices, Vol (2012), p. 1-9.

Edquist, C. and Zabala-Iturriagagoitiam J.M. (2015). The Innovation Union Scoreboard is flawed: The case of Sweden – not the innovation leader of the EU. CIRCLE Papers in Innovation Studies 2015/27. CIRCLE, Lund University.

Edquist, C., Zabala-Iturriagagoitiam, J. M. (2009). "Outputs of Innovation Systems: A European Perspective", Lund University, (Paper no. 2009/14), [Retrieved Maj 7, 2017], [Online] Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228365493_Outputs_of_innovation_systems_a_European_perspective [accessed Jan 21 2018].

European Innovation Scoreboard (various years). Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documens/24141

European Commission. (2017). European Innovation Scoreboard 2017 – Methodology Report, prepared by Hollanders, H. and N. Es-Sadki, European Innovation Scoreboard 2015-2017 report, Brussels: European Commission, DG GROW, 2017.

European Commission. (2014). Taking stock of the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, Brussels.

European Commission. (2013). Europe 2020: Europe’s growth strategy, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg

Freeman, C. (1987). Technology and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan, Pinter, London.

Faber, J., Hesen, A.B. (2004). Innovation Capabilities of European Nations Cross-national Analyses of Patents and Sales of Product Innovations, Research Policy 33, available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222604161_Innovation_capabilities_of_European_nations_Cross-national_analyses_of_patents_and_sales_of_product_innovations[accessed Jan 22 2018].

Foray, D., Hollanders, H. (2015). An assessment of the Innovation Union Scoreboard as a tool to analyse national innovation capacities: The case of Switzerland. Research Evaluation, 24, 213-228.

Gurova, V. (2015). Methodology and key determinants of building an efficient national innovation system of a Country, International Economic Policy, Vol. 2. (23), pp. 138-158.

Grupp, H., Schubert, T. (2010). Review and new evidence on composite innovation indicators for evaluating national performance, Research Policy 39, pp. 67–78

Hollanders, H., van Cruysen, A. (2008). “Rethinking the European innovation scoreboard: A new methodology for 2008-2010”. Inno-Metrics Publication, European Commission. Available at

http://eu.eustat.eus/elementos/ele0006100/ti_Methodology_Report_EIS_2008-2010/inf0006199_e.pdfhttp://eu.eustat.eus/elementos/ele0006100/ti_Methodology_Report_EIS_2008-2010/inf0006199_e.pdf [accessed Jan 14 2018]

Hollanders, H., F. Celikel-Esser. (2007), “Measuring innovation efficiency”, INNO Metrics 2007 report, Brussels: European Commission, DG Enterprise. Available at: http://eu.eustat.eus/elementos/ele0006100/ti_Methodology_Report_EIS_2008-2010/inf0006199_e.pdf [accessed Jan 22 2018].

Lundvall, B. A., (1992). National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. London: Pinter Publishers.

Nasierowski, W., Arcelus, F.J. (2012). About Efficiency of Innovations: What Can Be Learned From The Innovation Union Scoreboard Index, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 58, p. 792-801.

Nasierowski, W., Arcelus, F.J. (2003). On the Efficiency of National Innovation Systems, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 215–234.

Nelson R. (1993). “National Innovation Systems. A Comparative Analysis”, Oxford University Press, p. 560 p.

OECD. (2008). Productivity measurement and analysis. Paris: OECD and Swiss Federal Statistical Office

OECD (2005). The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities; Oslo Manual, Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data, 3rd Edition. OECD, Statistical Office of the European Communities, Luxembourg.

Schibany, A., Streicher, G. (2008). How not to compare innovation performance: A critical assessment of the European Innovation Scoreboard, Conference paper for the 2nd PRIME Indicators Conference on STI Indicators for Policy, Addressing New Demands of Stakeholders. Joanneum research – Institute of Technology and Regional Policy, Available at https://docgo.net/philosophy-of-money.html?utm_source=how-not-to-measure-innovation [accessed Jan 28 2018].

Schmiedeberg, C. (2008). Complementarities of innovation activities: An empirical analysis of the German manufacturing sector. Research Policy, 37(9), pp. 1492–1503.

Spronk, J. and Vermeulen, E.M. (2003). Comparative performance evaluation under uncertainty’, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 150, No. 3, pp. 482–495

von Tunzelmann, N., Acha, V. (2005). Innovation in “low-tech” Industries. In: Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D.C., Nelson, R.R. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 407–432.

Wagner-Döbler, W. (2005). ‘The system of research and development indicators: entry points for information agents”, Scientometrics, Vol. 62, No. 1, pp.145–153

Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J.M., Voigt, P., Gutiérrez-Gracia, A., Jiménez-Sáez, F. (2007a). Regional innovation systems: how to assess performance. Regional Studies, 41 (5), pp. 661-672.


Full Text: PDF

DOI: 10.21113/iir.v8i1.388

Article Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Metrics powered by PLOS ALM

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Copyright (c) 2018 Dr. Sc. Slagjana Stojanovska, Dr. Sc. Violeta Madzova

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
x
Message