INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011 The Innovation Unions performance scoreboard for Research and Innovation                 ...
2011 INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD1.     Executive summary ....................................................................
1.       EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThis is the second edition of the Innovation Union Scoreboard (IUS). Based on theprevious Europe...
The 25 indicators better capture the performance of national research and innovationsystems considered as a whole2. While ...
•   The performance of Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania is well below that of       the EU27 average. These countri...
It is evident that the moderate and modest innovators are characterised by anunbalanced research and innovation systems. T...
2.      INTRODUCTIONThe IUS 2011 largely follows the methodology of previous editions in distinguishingbetween 3 main type...
ReferenceMain type / innovation dimension / indicator                                   Data source                       ...
3.       INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD: FINDINGS FOR MEMBER STATES3.1. Innovation performanceA summary picture of innovation...
3.2. Growth performanceThe growth in innovation performance has been calculated for each country and for theEU27 using dat...
TABLE 2: INNOVATION GROWTH LEADERS                   GrowthGroup                     Growth leaders                       ...
Box 1 Sigma and beta convergenceThe overall process of catching up can be shown using two types of convergencecommonly use...
3.3. Innovation dimensionsThe performance of the four country groups across the different dimensions is shown inFigure 7. ...
FIGURE 8: MEMBER STATES’ INNOVATION PERFORMANCE PER DIMENSION1.00                                          Human resources...
4.       COMPARISON OF EU27 INNOVATION PERFORMANCE WITH KEY BENCHMARK COUNTRIESThis section focuses on a comparison with n...
tertiary education has been replaced by the same indicator but for the larger age group25 to 64.TABLE 3: INDICATORS USED I...
FIGURE 10: EU27 INNOVATION                          PERFORMANCE                The dynamic performance is shownCOMPARED TO...
The US is performing better than the EU27 in 10 indicators, in particular in Tertiaryeducation, R&D expenditure in the bus...
cited publications and License and patent revenues from abroad; the EU27 lead hasdecreased in Doctorate degrees.South Kore...
exports and License and patent revenues from abroad; the EU27 lead has decreased inDoctorate degrees and Knowledge-intensi...
License and patent revenues from abroad; Russia’s gap has increased for Internationalco-publications, Most cited publicati...
Brazil is lagging in most indicators, in particular in Public-private co-publications, PCTpatent applications in societal ...
5.            PERFORMANCE PER INDICATORThis section will discuss static and dynamic performance for each of the indicators...
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011

1,697

Published on

Published in: Business, Education
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,697
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
10
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011"

  1. 1. INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD 2011 The Innovation Unions performance scoreboard for Research and Innovation 7 February 2012The IUS report, its annexes and the indicators’ database are available athttp://www.proinno-europe.eu/metricsDisclaimer:The views expressed in this report, as well as the information included in it, do notnecessarily reflect the opinion or position of the European Commission and in no waycommit the institution.This report has been prepared by the Maastricht Economic and Social Research Instituteon Innovation and Technology (UNU-MERIT).
  2. 2. 2011 INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD1. Executive summary .......................................................................................22. Introduction .................................................................................................63. Innovation Union Scoreboard: Findings for Member States ..................................8 3.1. Innovation performance...........................................................................8 3.2. Growth performance ...............................................................................9 3.3. Innovation dimensions........................................................................... 124. Comparison of EU27 innovation performance with key benchmark countries ........ 14 4.1. A comparison with other European countries............................................. 14 4.2. A comparison with global competitors ...................................................... 145. Performance per indicator............................................................................. 226. Country profiles .......................................................................................... 497. Technical Annex .......................................................................................... 84 7.1. Calculating composite scores .................................................................. 84 7.2. Calculating growth rates ........................................................................ 85Annexes ........................................................................................................... 87 1
  3. 3. 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThis is the second edition of the Innovation Union Scoreboard (IUS). Based on theprevious European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS), the tool is meant to help monitor theimplementation of the Europe 2020 Innovation Union1 flagship by providing acomparative assessment of the innovation performance of the EU27 Member States andthe relative strengths and weaknesses of their research and innovation systems.The IUS includes innovation indicators and trend analyses for the EU27 Member States,as well as for Croatia, Iceland, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Norway,Serbia, Switzerland and Turkey. It also includes comparisons based on a more reducedset of indicators between the EU27 and 10 global competitors.The IUS 2011 distinguishes between 3 main types of indicators and 8 innovationdimensions, capturing in total 25 different indicators (cf. Figure 1).Figure 1: Framework of the Innovation Union Scoreboard Summary Innovation Index (SII) ENABLERS FIRM OUTPUTS ACTIVITIES Open, excel- Linkages & Human lent, attrac- Finance and Firm entrepre- Intellectual Innovators Economic resources tive research support investments neurship assets effects systems New doctorate International R&D R&D SMEs PCT patent SMEs with Employment graduates scientific co- expenditure in expenditure in innovating in- applications product or in knowledge- publications the public the business house process intensive sector sector innovations activities Population Top 10% most Venture Non-R&D Innovative PCT patent SMEs with Medium & aged 30-34 cited scientific capital innovation SMEs applications in marketing or high-tech with tertiary publications expenditure collaborating societal organisational product education with others challenges innovations exports Youth with at Non-EU Public-private Community High-growth Knowledge- least upper doctorate co- trademarks innovative intensive secondary students publications firms services education exports Community Sales of new designs to market and new to firm innovations License and patent revenues from abroadThe Enablers capture the main drivers of innovation performance external to the firmand cover 3 innovation dimensions: ‘Human resources’, ‘Open, excellent and attractiveresearch systems’ as well as ‘Finance and support’. Firm activities capture theinnovation efforts at the level of the firm, grouped in 3 innovation dimensions: ‘Firminvestments’, ‘Linkages & entrepreneurship’ and ‘Intellectual assets’. Outputs cover theeffects of firms’ innovation activities in 2 innovation dimensions: ‘Innovators’ and‘Economic effects’.1 See http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/innovation-union-communication_en.pdf 2
  4. 4. The 25 indicators better capture the performance of national research and innovationsystems considered as a whole2. While some of the indicators of the IUS (such as publicR&D expenditure) can be more easily influenced by policy intervention than others (suchas SMEs innovating in-house), the overall ambition of the Innovation Union Scoreboardis to inform policy discussions at national and EU level, by tracking progress ininnovation performance within and outside the EU over time.The IUS uses the most recent statistics from Eurostat and other internationallyrecognised sources as available at the time of analysis. International sources have beenused wherever possible in order to improve comparability between countries. The IUS2011 may not fully capture the impact of the economic and financial crisis on innovationperformance as there is a delay in data availability where data refer to 2009 or 2010 for14 indicators and to 2007 or 2008 for 10 indicators. The current composite indicatorconsists of 24 individual indicators since the last indicator on “High-growth innovativeenterprises as a percentage of all enterprises” is being developed.FIGURE 2: EU MEMBER STATES’ INNOVATION PERFORMANCE 0.800 0.700 0.600 0.500 0.400 0.300 0.200 0.100 0.000 LV B G LT RO P L SK M T GR HU ES CZ P T IT EE CY SI EU FR IE LU A T NL UK B E FI DE DK SE M ODEST INNOVA TORS M ODERA TE INNOVA TORS INNOVA TION FOLLOWERS INNOVA TION LEA DERSNote: Average performance is measured using a composite indicator building on data for 24 indicators goingfrom a lowest possible performance of 0 to a maximum possible performance of 1. Average performance in2011 reflects performance in 2009/2010 due to a lag in data availability.Performance groupsBased on their average innovation performance, the Member States fall into fourperformance groups (see section 3.1): • The performance of Denmark, Finland, Germany and Sweden is well above that of the EU27 average. These countries are the ‘Innovation leaders’. • Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Slovenia and the UK all show a performance close to that of the EU27 average. These countries are the ‘Innovation followers’. • The performance of Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Spain is below that of the EU27 average. These countries are ‘Moderate innovators’.2 See Annex C for the definition of indicators 3
  5. 5. • The performance of Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania is well below that of the EU27 average. These countries are ‘Modest innovators’.Bulgaria, Estonia, Romania, Portugal and Slovenia are the growth leaders with anaverage annual growth rate well above 5%. There continues to be a steadyconvergence, where less innovative Member States have – on average – been growingfaster than the more innovative Member States. This convergence process howeverseems to be slowing down (see section 3.2). While the Moderate and Modest innovatorsclearly catch-up to the higher performance level of both the Innovation leaders andInnovation followers, there is no convergence between the different Member Stateswithin the Moderate innovators. Convergence between the Member States does takeplace within the Innovation leaders, Innovation followers and Modest innovators.FIGURE 3: COUNTRY GROUPS: INNOVATION PERFORMANCE PER DIMENSION Human resources 0.80 Modest innovators Moderate innovators Economic effects 0.60 Research systems Innovation follow ers 0.40 Innovation leaders 0.20 Innovators 0.00 Finance and support Intellectual assets Firm investments Linkages & entrepreneurshipWhat do innovation leaders have in common?Countries at the top of the ranking for the composite innovation indicator share anumber of strengths in their national research and innovation systems with a keyrole of business activity and public-private collaboration. While there is not onesingle way to reach top innovation performance, it is clear that all innovation leaders,Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Germany, perform very well in Business R&Dexpenditures. Most of the innovation leaders also perform very well in otherinnovation indicators related to firm activities The top EU innovator Swedendominates in three out of 8 innovation dimensions: Human resources, Finance andsupport, and Firm investments; while Germany and Denmark perform best in twoinnovation dimensions each.All of the innovation leaders have higher than average scores in Public-private co-publications per million populations, which suggests good linkages between the sciencebase and enterprises. All European top innovators also excel in the commercialisation oftheir technological knowledge, as demonstrated by their good performance on theindicator License and patent revenues from abroad.The overall good performance of the innovation leaders reflects a balanced nationalresearch and innovation system. It means that the innovation leaders as well as theinnovation followers have the smallest variance in their performance across all the 8innovation dimensions.While each country has its own specificities, policy responses should attempt not only toaddress relative weaknesses in national research and innovation systems, but also tohave more balanced performances across all categories of indicators. 4
  6. 6. It is evident that the moderate and modest innovators are characterised by anunbalanced research and innovation systems. This is particularly clear in the ‘Innovators’dimension with very low shares of SMEs introducing product or process innovations aswell as SMEs introducing marketing and organisation innovations. At the same time, thegrowth rates of most of the modest and moderate innovators are the highest among theEU27 which indicates a convergence process with Bulgaria as a EU catching-up leader,followed by Romania and Estonia.International comparisonA comparison with other European countries not belonging to the European Union showsthat Switzerland is the overall Innovation leader continuously outperforming all EU27countries. Iceland is part of the Innovation followers, Croatia, Norway and Serbia of theModerate innovators and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Turkey of theModest innovators. For Croatia, Serbia and Turkey growth has been well above the EU27average.Comparing the EU27 with a selected group of major global competitors shows that theUS, Japan and South Korea have a performance lead over the EU27. This lead has beenincreasing for South Korea, has remained stable for the US and has been decreasing forJapan. The global innovation leaders US and Japan are particularly dominating the EU27in indicators capturing business activity and public-private cooperation: ‘R&Dexpenditure in the business sector’, ‘Public-private co-publications’, ‘License and patentrevenues from abroad’ and ‘PCT patent applications’. South Korea which is increasinglyoutperforming the EU27 is again having its biggest lead in R&D expenditures in thebusiness sector.The EU27 has a performance lead over Australia, Canada and all BRICS countries (Brazil,Russia, India, China and South Africa). This lead has been increasing compared toCanada, Russia and South Africa, has remained stable to Australia and has beendecreasing to Brazil and in particular to China and India. China has been closing theinnovation gap to Europe continuously in the last few years. 5
  7. 7. 2. INTRODUCTIONThe IUS 2011 largely follows the methodology of previous editions in distinguishingbetween 3 main types of indicators and 8 innovation dimensions, capturing in total 25different indicators.The Enablers capture the main drivers of innovation performance external to the firmand it differentiates between 3 innovation dimensions. ‘Human resources’ includes 3indicators and measures the availability of a high-skilled and educated workforce. ‘Open,excellent and attractive research systems’ includes 3 indicators and measures theinternational competitiveness of the science base. ‘Finance and support’ includes 2indicators and measures the availability of finance for innovation projects and thesupport of governments for research and innovation activities.Firm activities capture the innovation efforts at the level of the firm and itdifferentiates between 3 innovation dimensions. ‘Firm investments’ includes 2 indicatorsof both R&D and non-R&D investments that firms make in order to generate innovations.‘Linkages & entrepreneurship’ includes 3 indicators and measures entrepreneurial effortsand collaboration efforts among innovating firms and also with the public sector.‘Intellectual assets’ captures different forms of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)generated as a throughput in the innovation process.Outputs capture the effects of firms’ innovation activities and it differentiates between 2innovation dimensions. ‘Innovators’ includes 3 indicators and measures the number offirms that have introduced innovations onto the market or within their organisations,covering both technological and non-technological innovations and the presence of high-growth firms. The indicator on innovative high-growth firms corresponds to the newEU2020 headline indicator, which will be completed within the next two years. ‘Economiceffects’ includes 5 indicators and captures the economic success of innovation inemployment, exports and sales due to innovation activities.The indicators included in each of these dimensions are listed in Table 1 and indicatordefinitions are presented in Annex C.TABLE 1: INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD INDICATORS ReferenceMain type / innovation dimension / indicator Data source year(s)ENABLERS Human resources 1.1.1 New doctorate graduates (ISCED 6) per 1000 population aged 25- Eurostat 2005 – 2009 34 1.1.2 Percentage population aged 30-34 having completed tertiary Eurostat 2006 – 2010 education 1.1.3 Percentage youth aged 20-24 having attained at least upper Eurostat 2006 – 2010 secondary level education Open, excellent and attractive research systems Science-Metrix / 1.2.1 International scientific co-publications per million population 2006 – 2010 Scopus 1.2.2 Scientific publications among the top 10% most cited publications Science-Metrix / 2003 – 2007 worldwide as % of total scientific publications of the country Scopus 1.2.3 Non-EU doctorate students3 as a % of all doctorate students Eurostat 2005 – 2009 Finance and support 1.3.1 R&D expenditure in the public sector as % of GDP Eurostat 2006 – 2010 1.3.2 Venture capital (early stage, expansion and replacement) as % of Eurostat 2006 – 2010 GDP43 For non-EU countries the indicator measures the share of non-domestic doctoral students. 6
  8. 8. ReferenceMain type / innovation dimension / indicator Data source year(s)FIRM ACTIVITIES Firm investments 2.1.1 R&D expenditure in the business sector as % of GDP Eurostat 2006 – 2010 2004, 2006, 2.1.2 Non-R&D innovation expenditures as % of turnover Eurostat 2008 Linkages & entrepreneurship 2004, 2006, 2.2.1 SMEs innovating in-house as % of SMEs Eurostat 2008 2004, 2006, 2.2.2 Innovative SMEs collaborating with others as % of SMEs Eurostat 2008 CWTS / Thomson 2.2.3 Public-private co-publications per million population 2004 – 2008 Reuters Intellectual assets 2.3.1 PCT patents applications per billion GDP (in PPS€) Eurostat 2004 – 2008 2.3.2 PCT patent applications in societal challenges per billion GDP (in OECD / Eurostat 2004 – 2008 PPS€) (climate change mitigation; health) 2.3.3 Community trademarks per billion GDP (in PPS€) OHIM / Eurostat 2006 – 2010 2.3.4 Community designs per billion GDP (in PPS€) OHIM / Eurostat 2006 – 2010OUTPUTS Innovators 2004, 2006, 3.1.1 SMEs introducing product or process innovations as % of SMEs Eurostat 2008 3.1.2 SMEs introducing marketing or organisational innovations as % of 2004, 2006, Eurostat SMEs 2008 3.1.3 High-growth innovative firms N/A N/A Economic effects 3.2.1 Employment in knowledge-intensive activities (manufacturing and Eurostat 2008 – 2010 services) as % of total employment 3.2.2 Medium and high-tech product exports as % total product exports UN / Eurostat 2006 – 2010 3.2.3 Knowledge-intensive services exports as % total service exports UN / Eurostat 2005 – 2009 3.2.4 Sales of new to market and new to firm innovations as % of 2004, 2006, Eurostat turnover 2008 3.2.5 License and patent revenues from abroad as % of GDP Eurostat 2006 – 2010The IUS uses the most recent statistics from Eurostat and other internationallyrecognised sources as available at the time of analysis. International sources have beenused wherever possible in order to improve comparability between countries. It isimportant to note that the data relates to actual performance in 2007 (1 indicator), 2008(9 indicators5), 2009 (3 indicators) and 2010 (11 indicators). As a consequence the IUS2011 does not capture the most recent changes in innovation performance or the impactof policies introduced in recent years which may take some time to impact on innovationperformance. Nor does it fully capture the impact of the financial crisis on innovationperformance.4 Venture capital data as a share of GDP up until 2009 are available from Eurostat. For 2010 venture capitalinvestment data have been extracted from EVCA’s Yearbook 2011. The 2009 Eurostat data for %-shares ofGDP have been updated to 2010 percentages by adjusting the 2009 data using the ratio of the 2009-2010growth rates of these venture capital investments and GDP. The 2010 percentages used in this report are thusestimates and not official Eurostat data.5 Of these 6 indicators are from the latest available Community Innovation Survey from 2008. 7
  9. 9. 3. INNOVATION UNION SCOREBOARD: FINDINGS FOR MEMBER STATES3.1. Innovation performanceA summary picture of innovation performance is provided by the Summary InnovationIndex, a composite indicator obtained by an appropriate aggregation of the 24 IUSindicators (see Section 7.1 for a brief explanation of the calculation methodology and theIUS 2010 Methodology report for a more detailed explanation). Figure 4 shows theperformance results for 27 EU Member States.Based on the Summary Innovation Index, the Member States fall into the following fourcountry groups: • The performance of Denmark, Finland, Germany and Sweden is well above that of the EU27. These countries are the ‘Innovation leaders’. • Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Slovenia and the UK all show a performance close to that of the EU27. These countries are the ‘Innovation followers’. • The performance of Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Spain is below that of the EU27. These countries are ‘Moderate innovators’. • The performance of Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania is well below that of the EU27. These countries are ‘Modest innovators’.FIGURE 4: EU MEMBER STATES’ INNOVATION PERFORMANCE 0.800 0.700 0.600 0.500 0.400 0.300 0.200 0.100 0.000 LV B G LT RO P L SK M T GR HU ES CZ P T IT EE CY SI EU FR IE LU A T NL UK B E FI DE DK SE M ODEST INNOVA TORS M ODERA TE INNOVA TORS INNOVA TION FOLLOWERS INNOVA TION LEA DERSNote: Average performance is measured using a composite indicator building on data for 24 indicators rangingfrom a lowest possible performance of 0 to a maximum possible performance of 1. Average performance in2011 reflects performance in 2009/2010 due to a lag in data availability.The performance of Innovation leaders is 20% or more above that of the EU27; of Innovation followers it isless than 20% above but more than 10% below that of the EU27; of Moderate innovators it is less than 10%below but more than 50% below that of the EU27; and for Modest innovators it is below 50% that of the EU27. 8
  10. 10. 3.2. Growth performanceThe growth in innovation performance has been calculated for each country and for theEU27 using data over a five-year period6. All countries except Luxembourg and the UKshow an absolute improvement in the innovation performance over time (Figure 5).Bulgaria and Estonia have experienced the fastest growth in performance.Within the four identified country groups growth performance is very different and Table2 identifies the growth leaders within each group. Within the Innovation leaders, Finlandis the growth leader. Cyprus, Estonia and Slovenia are the growth leaders of theInnovation followers, Malta and Portugal are the growth leaders of the Moderateinnovators and Bulgaria is the growth leader of the Modest innovators.FIGURE 5: CONVERGENCE IN INNOVATION PERFORMANCE 0.850 0.800 0.750 SE DK DE 0.700 FI Innovation performance 0.650 BE UK 0.600 A T NL LU IE FR 0.550 SI 0.500 CY EE 0.450 IT CZ PT 0.400 ES 0.350 HU GR MT 0.300 PL SK LT RO 0.250 BG LV 0.200 0.150 -1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0% 10.0% Average annual growth in innovation performanceColour coding matches the groups of countries identified in Section 3.1. Average annual growth rates ascalculated over a five-year period. Total growth can be derived by multiplying the average annual growth rateby 4. The dotted lines show EU27 performance and growth.The average growth rates for the four country groups (Table 2) show that there is anoverall convergence between the four performance groups. The Innovation followersgrow at a faster rate than the Innovation leaders, the Moderate innovators at a slightlyfaster rate than the Innovation followers and the Modest innovators grow at a faster ratethan the Moderate innovators. Less innovative countries tend to grow faster than moreinnovative countries and the spread in innovation performance is decreasing.While the Moderate and Modest innovators clearly catch-up to the higher performancelevel of both the Innovation leaders and Innovation followers, there is no convergencebetween the different Member States within the Moderate innovators (Box 1).Convergence between the Member States does take place within the Innovation leaders,Innovation followers and Modest innovators.6 The methodology for calculating growth rates is discussed in Section 7.2. 9
  11. 11. TABLE 2: INNOVATION GROWTH LEADERS GrowthGroup Growth leaders Moderate growers Slow growers rateInnovation 1.0% Finland (FI) Germany (DE) Denmark (DK)leaders Sweden (SE)Innovation 2.4% Cyprus (CY), Estonia (EE) Austria (AT), Belgium (BE) Luxembourg (LU)followers Slovenia (SI) France (FR), Ireland (IE) United Kingdom (UK) Netherlands (NL)Moderate 2.5% Malta (MT), Portugal (PT) Czech Republic (CZ) Greece (GR), Spain (ES)innovators Hungary (HU), Italy (IT) Poland (PL), Slovakia (SK)Modest 4.4% Bulgaria (BG) Latvia (LV), Romania (RO) Lithuania (LT)innovatorsAverage annual growth rates as calculated over a five-year period.FIGURE 6: EU27 GROWTH PERFORMANCE HUM A N RESOURCES 1 .1New do cto rate graduates .1 2.8% 1 .2 P o pulatio n aged 30-34 co mpleted tertiary educatio n .1 3.8% 1 .3 Yo uth aged 20-24 upper seco ndary level educatio n .1 0.4% OP EN, EXCELLENT, A TTRA CTIVE RESEA RCH SYSTEM S 1 Internatio nal scientific co -publicatio ns .2.1 6.0% 1.2.2 To p 1 mo st cited scientific publicatio ns wo rldwide 0% 2.1% 1.2.3 No n-EU do cto rate students 1.5% FINA NCE A ND SUP P ORT 1 R&D expenditure in the public secto r .3.1 4.0% 1.3.2 Venture capital -6.3% FIRM INVESTM ENTS 2.1 R&D expenditure in the business secto r .1 1.3% 2.1 No n-R&D inno vatio n expenditures .2 -2.6% LINKA GES & ENTREP RENEURSHIP 2.2.1SM Es inno vating in-ho use -1.3% 2.2.2 Inno vative SM Es co llabo rating with o thers 5.5% 2.2.3 P ublic-private scientfic co -publicatio ns 1% .1 INTELLECTUA L A SSETS 2.3.1P CT patent applicatio ns -0.8% 2.3.2 P CT patent applicatio ns in so cietal challenges 0.5% 2.3.3 Co mmunity trademarks 8.0% 2.3.4 Co mmunity designs 1% .1 INNOVA TORS 3.1 SM Es intro ducing pro duct o r pro cess inno vatio ns .1 -0.7% 3.1 SM Es intro ducing marketing o r o rganisatio nal inno v. .2 0.6% ECONOM IC EFFECTS 3.2.1Emplo yment in kno wledge-intensive activities 0.6% 3.2.2 M edium-high and high-tech pro duct expo rts 0.2% 3.2.3 Kno wledge-Intensive services expo rts 0.5% 3.2.4 Sales o f new to market and new to firm inno vatio ns -1.2% 3.2.5 Licence and patent revenues fro m abro ad 2.9% -10% -8% -6% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10%The shaded area gives the average growth rate for the EU27 for all indicators. Growth performance of Newdoctorate graduates equals 0%.The EU27 has experienced an improvement in it’s innovation performance over the lastfive years. Growth is particularly strong in Open, excellent and attractive researchsystems and Intellectual assets (Figure 6). Performance has worsened in Firminvestments and Innovators.For the individual indicators we observe high growth for International scientific co-publications and Community trademarks. A high negative growth rate is observed forNon-R&D innovation expenditure and Venture capital and, to a lesser extent, for SMEsinnovating in-house, SMEs with product or process innovations and Sales of new tomarket and new to firm innovations. Of the indicators with a negative growthperformance 4 are derived from the Community Innovation Survey. 10
  12. 12. Box 1 Sigma and beta convergenceThe overall process of catching up can be shown using two types of convergencecommonly used in growth studies: sigma-convergence and beta-convergence. When the spread in innovation Sigm a-convergence 0.380 performance across a group of economies 0.370 falls over time, there is sigma- convergence. This spread in convergence is 0.360 measured by the ratio of the standard 0.350 deviation and the average performance of 0.340 the Member States. As shown in the graph 0.330 on the left, this spread has been reduced 0.320 over a five year period thereby confirming 0.310 sigma-convergence but the rate of "2007" "2008" "2009" "2010" "2011" convergence seems to have slowed down.Convergence is the dominant phenomenon within 3 of the 4 performance groups, onlywithin the Moderate innovators performance diverges (graph below).Beta-convergence applies if a less Perform ance gap w ithin groupsinnovative country tends to grow faster 0.250than a more innovative country (cf. Figure4 where beta-convergence should emerge 0.200from the apparent downward sloping 0.150regression line between the level andgrowth of performance). Beta-convergence 0.100can be measured by the partial correlation 0.050between growth in innovation performanceover time and its initial level: when this 0.000correlation is negative, there is beta- Innovation Innovation Moderate Modestconvergence. The correlation between leaders follow ers innovators innovators“2007” innovation performance and "2007" "2008" "2009" "2010" "2011"innovation growth is -0.591 (significant at1%) indicating the existence of beta-convergence.Between the performance groups there is evidence of convergence of the 2 lowerperformance groups to that of the Innovation leaders and Innovation followers.Between-group convergence appears to be stronger than within group convergence. 11
  13. 13. 3.3. Innovation dimensionsThe performance of the four country groups across the different dimensions is shown inFigure 7. The Innovation leaders and the Innovation followers have the smallest variancein their performance across the 8 dimensions, suggesting that to achieve a high level ofperformance countries need to perform relatively well across all 8 dimensions.FIGURE 7: COUNTRY GROUPS: INNOVATION PERFORMANCE PER DIMENSION Human resources 0.80 Modest innovators Moderate innovators Economic effects 0.60 Research systems Innovation follow ers 0.40 Innovation leaders 0.20 Innovators 0.00 Finance and support Intellectual assets Firm investments Linkages & entrepreneurshipCountry rankings for each innovation dimension are shown in Figure 8. The Innovationleaders dominate performance in Firm investments and Intellectual assets and to alesser extent in Human resources, Finance and support, Linkages & entrepreneurshipand Economic effects. The Innovation followers perform relatively well in Open, excellentand attractive research systems (with the Netherlands leading overall) and Linkages &entrepreneurship. The Moderate innovators perform relatively well in Innovators andEconomic effects and the Modest innovators perform relatively well in Human resources,Finance and support and Firm investments. Variance in Member States’ performance issmallest in Human resources, Firm investments and Economic effects and largest inOpen, excellent and attractive research systems, Finance and support and Linkages &entrepreneurship. 12
  14. 14. FIGURE 8: MEMBER STATES’ INNOVATION PERFORMANCE PER DIMENSION1.00 Human resources0.800.600.400.200.00 M T RO IT ES LV P T B G HU GR CZ EU EE CY A T P L DE DK SK NL LT SI B E FR LU UK IE FI SE1.00 Open, excellent and attractive research systems0.800.600.400.200.00 LV P L RO LT SK B G M T HU CZ GR EE IT CY SI P T EU ES DE FI A T LU FR IE B E UK SE DK NL1.00 Finance and support0.800.600.400.200.00 M T B G GR CY SK RO LV HU CZ P L IE IT LT ES A T P T LU SI B E EU DE FR EE NL UK DK FI SE1.00 Firm investments0.800.600.400.200.00 GR SK LT ES LU IT NL B G P T HU M T LV P L FR RO B E EU UK CZ CY SI A T IE DK DE FI EE SE1.00 Linkages & entrepreneurship0.800.600.400.200.00 LV B G RO P L M T SK LT HU ES IT CZ P T GR EU FR IE LU NL SI DE A T EE CY FI SE B E UK DK1.00 Intellectual assets0.800.600.400.200.00 RO LT GR SK B G P L CZ HU LV P T CY EE ES M T SI UK IE FR IT B E EU LU FI NL A T DE SE DK1.00 Innovators0.800.600.400.200.00 LV P L HU B G RO LT SK M T UK ES NL IE SI FR EU FI IT DK SE EE CZ A T GR B E CY P T LU DE1.00 Economic effects0.800.600.400.200.00 LT LV B G GR EE P T P L A T ES IT SK RO B E SI CY NL FR EU CZ UK SE DK FI HU LU M T IE DE M ODEST INNOVA TORS M ODERA TE INNOVA TORS INNOVA TION FOLLOWERS INNOVA TION LEA DERS 13
  15. 15. 4. COMPARISON OF EU27 INNOVATION PERFORMANCE WITH KEY BENCHMARK COUNTRIESThis section focuses on a comparison with non-EU Member States, starting with acomparison with other European countries in section 4.1 and with the EU27’s globalcompetitors in section 4.2.4.1. A comparison with other European countriesData is available for seven more non-EU European countries to perform a comparisonwith the Member States (Figure 9). Of these Switzerland belongs to the Innovationleaders, Iceland to the Innovation followers, Croatia, Norway and Serbia to the Moderateinnovators and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Turkey to the Modestinnovators.Switzerland is the overall innovation leader, outperforming all Member States. Its growthperformance of 1.3% in the lat five years is also above that of the EU27. For Croatia,Serbia and Turkey growth in innovation performance has been between 4.1% and 5.3%,well above that of the EU27 in the same period. For the Former Yugoslav Republic ofMacedonia growth performance is also above the EU27 average at 2.3%.FIGURE 9: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES’ INNOVATION PERFORMANCE 0.900 0.800 0.700 0.600 0.500 0.400 0.300 0.200 0.100 0.000 TR LV B G M K LT RO RS P L SK HR M TGR HU ES CZ P T IT NO EE CY SI EU FR IE LU A T NL IS UK B E FI DE DK SE CH M ODEST INNOVA TORS M ODERA TE INNOVA TORS INNOVA TION FOLLOWERS INNOVA TION LEA DERSNote: Average performance is measured using a composite indicator building on data for 24 indicators rangingfrom a lowest possible performance of 0 to a maximum possible performance of 1. Average performance in2011 reflects performance in 2009/2010 due to a lag in data availability.4.2. A comparison with global competitorsEurope’s main global competitors include Australia, the BRICS countries (Brazil, China,India, Russia and South Africa), Canada, Japan and the US. For these countries dataavailability is more limited than for the European countries (e.g. comparable innovationsurvey data are not available for many of these countries). Furthermore, the economicand/or population size of these countries outweighs those of many of the individualMember States and we thus compare these countries with the aggregate of the MemberStates or the EU27.For the international comparison of the EU27 with these countries a more restricted setof 12 indicators is used of which most are nearly identical to those of the IUS (Table 3).The IUS indicator measuring the share of the population aged 30 to 34 having completed 14
  16. 16. tertiary education has been replaced by the same indicator but for the larger age group25 to 64.TABLE 3: INDICATORS USED IN THE INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON Most Date notMain type / innovation dimension / indicator Data source recent available year forENABLERSHuman resources1.1.1 New doctorate graduates (ISCED 6) per 1000 population OECD / Eurostat 2009 CN, IN, SAaged 25-341.1.2 Percentage population aged 25-64 having completed OECD / World Bank 2008tertiary education / EurostatOpen, excellent and attractive research systems1.2.1 International scientific co-publications per million Science-Metrix / 2010 AU, CA, SApopulation Scopus1.2.2 Scientific publications among the top 10% most cited Science-Metrix /publications worldwide as % of total scientific publications of the 2007 AU, CA, SA ScopuscountryFinance and support1.3.1 R&D expenditure in the public sector as % of GDP OECD / Eurostat 2009FIRM ACTIVITIESFirm investments2.1.1 R&D expenditure in the business sector as % of GDP OECD / Eurostat 2009Linkages & entrepreneurship CWTS / Thomson2.2.3 Public-private co-publications per million population 2008 ReutersIntellectual assets2.3.1 PCT patents applications per billion GDP (in PPS€) OECD / Eurostat 2008 BR, IN2.3.2 PCT patents applications in societal challenges per billion OECD / Eurostat 2008 SAGDP (in PPS€) (climate change mitigation; health)OUTPUTSEconomic effects3.2.2 Medium and high-tech product exports as % total product UN / Eurostat 2010exports3.2.3 Knowledge-intensive services exports as % total service UN / Eurostat 2009 SAexports World Bank /3.2.5 License and patent revenues from abroad as % of GDP 2010 EurostatFigure 10 summarizes the performance for the EU27 and its major global competitorsover a 5 year period7. Innovation performance in the US, Japan and South Korea isabove that of the EU27. The performance of Canada is close to that of the EU27. TheEU27 is outperforming the other countries, in particular the BRICS countries.7 The methodology for calculating average innovation performance has been revised compared to that used inthe IUS 2010 report. The results shown here are thus not comparable with those presented in the IUS 2010report. More details are provided in Annex 7.3. 15
  17. 17. FIGURE 10: EU27 INNOVATION PERFORMANCE The dynamic performance is shownCOMPARED TO MAIN COMPETITORS in a graph similar to that presented in the IUS 2010 (Figure 11). China is United States catching-up to the EU27. The EU27 Japan is slowly closing its performance gap Korea to Japan and the US and increasing EU27 its lead over Canada and Brazil. The Canada lead over Australia, India, Russia Australia and South Africa has been stable. Russian Federation South Korea is increasing its lead China over the EU27. India Brazil South Africa 0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800FIGURE 11: EU27 CHANGE IN INNOVATION PERFORMANCE COMPARED TO MAIN COMPETITORS United States Japan South Korea50 50 3040 4030 30 2020 20 1010 38 39 37 32 31 10 27 28 23 17 18 5 6 13 17 17 0 0 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Canada Australia 0 0 -2 -4 -3 -5 -4 -7 -26 -28 -26 -30 -28 -10 -4 -20 -6 -8 -30-10 -40 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Russia China India 0 0 0 -60 -61 -60 -63 -61 -71 -69 -69 -67 -65 -72 -72 -71 -71 -71-20 -20 -20-40 -40 -40-60 -60 -60-80 -80 -80 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Brazil South Africa 0 0 -65 -63 -70 -72 -71 -20 -78 -77 -77 -80 -81-20 -40-40 -60-60 -80-80 -100 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 16
  18. 18. The US is performing better than the EU27 in 10 indicators, in particular in Tertiaryeducation, R&D expenditure in the business sector and Public-private co-publications(Figure 12). In R&D expenditure in the public sector and Knowledge-intensive servicesexports the EU27 has a small performance lead. Overall there is a clear performancelead in favour of the US but this lead has been declining, in particular since 2009. TheUS has increased its lead in Doctorate degrees and R&D expenditure in the businesssector; the US lead has decreased in Tertiary education, International co-publications,Most cited publications, Public-private co-publications, PCT patents, PCT patents insocietal challenges, Medium and high-tech product exports and License and patentrevenues from abroad. The EU27 has increased its lead in R&D expenditure in the publicsector; the EU27 lead has decreased in Knowledge-intensive services exports.FIGURE 12: EU27-US COMPARISON Perform ance lead/gap United States Change lead/gap United States Do cto rate degrees 0.1 4% Do cto rate degrees Tertiary educatio n 0.6 Tertiary educatio n -1% Internatio nal co -publicatio ns 0.4 -2% Internatio nal co -publ. M o st cited publicatio ns 0.3 M o st cited publicatio ns -2% R&D exp. public secto r -0.1 R&D exp. public secto r -4% R&D exp. business secto r 0.6 R&D exp. business 1% P ublic-private co -publicatio ns 0.9 P ublic-private co -publ. -1% P CT patents 0.0 P CT patents -3% P CT patents so cietal ch. 0.5 P CT patents so cietal ch. -3% M edium-high-tech expo rts 0.1 M edium-high-tech exp. -5% Kno wledge-int. services exp. -0.1 KIS expo rts 1% 1 License and patent revenues 0.3 License and patent rev. -4% -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15%A country has a performance lead if the relative score for the indicator is below 0 and a performance lead inthe relative score is above 0. The EU27 has a performance lead if the relative score for the indicator is below 0and a performance lead if the relative score is above 0. Relative annual growth as compared to that of theEU27 over a 5-year period.FIGURE 13: EU27-JAPAN COMPARISON Perform ance lead/gap Japan Change lead/gap Japan Do cto rate degrees -0.3 6% Do cto rate degrees Tertiary educatio n 0.7 Tertiary educatio n 0% Internatio nal co -publicatio ns -0.3 -4% Internatio nal co -publ. M o st cited publicatio ns -0.3 M o st cited publicatio ns -2% R&D exp. public secto r 0.0 R&D exp. public secto r -2% R&D exp. business secto r 1.0 R&D exp. business -2% P ublic-private co -publicatio ns 0.6 P ublic-private co -publ. -3% P CT patents 1.1 P CT patents 2% P CT patents so cietal ch. 0.4 P CT patents so cietal ch. -4% M edium-high-tech expo rts 0.5 M edium-high-tech exp. -1% Kno wledge-int. services exp. -0.3 KIS expo rts 0% License and patent revenues 0.0 License and patent rev. -4% -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 -10% -5% 0% 5% 10%A country has a performance lead if the relative score for the indicator is below 0 and a performance lead inthe relative score is above 0. The EU27 has a performance lead if the relative score for the indicator is below 0and a performance lead if the relative score is above 0. Relative annual growth as compared to that of theEU27 over a 5-year period.Japan is performing better than the EU27 in 7 indicators, in particular in R&Dexpenditure in the business sector and PCT patent applications (Figure 13). In Newdoctorate degrees, International co-publications, Most cited publications and Knowledge-intensive services exports the EU27 is performing better. Overall there is a clearperformance lead in favour of Japan but this lead has been decreasing, in particularbetween 2008 and 2010 with a stable lead in 2011. Japan has increased its lead in PCTpatents; Japan’s lead has decreased in R&D expenditure in the business sector, Public-private co-publications, PCT patents in societal challenges and Medium and high-techproduct exports. The EU27 has increased its lead in International co-publications, Most 17
  19. 19. cited publications and License and patent revenues from abroad; the EU27 lead hasdecreased in Doctorate degrees.South Korea is performing better than the EU27 in 7 indicators, in particular in R&Dexpenditure in the business sector and PCT patent applications (Figure 14). The EU27has a performance lead in Doctorate degrees, Most-cited publications, PCT patentapplications in societal challenges and License and patent revenues from abroad. Overallthere is a clear performance lead in favour of South Korea and this innovation lead hasbeen increasing up until 2010 and remained stable in 2011. South Korea has increasedits lead in Tertiary education, R&D expenditure in the business sector, PCT patents andKnowledge-intensive services exports. The EU27 has increased its lead in Most citedpublications; the EU27 lead has decreased in PCT patents in societal challenges andLicense and patent revenues from abroad.FIGURE 14: EU27-SOUTH KOREA COMPARISON Perform ance lead/gap South Korea Change lead/gap South Korea Do cto rate degrees -0.2 0% Do cto rate degrees Tertiary educatio n 0.4 Tertiary educatio n 2% Internatio nal co -publicatio ns -0.1 2% Internatio nal co -publ. M o st cited publicatio ns -0.3 M o st cited publicatio ns -2% R&D exp. public secto r 0.0 R&D exp. public secto r 3% R&D exp. business secto r 1.0 R&D exp. business 2% P ublic-private co -publicatio ns 0.3 P ublic-private co -publ. 6% P CT patents 0.9 P CT patents 1% 1 P CT patents so cietal ch. -0.2 P CT patents so cietal ch. 5% M edium-high-tech expo rts 0.5 M edium-high-tech exp. 0% Kno wledge-int. services exp. 0.4 KIS expo rts 1% License and patent revenues -0.4 License and patent rev. 4% -1 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 .2 0.4 0.8 1.2 -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15%A country has a performance lead if the relative score for the indicator is below 0 and a performance lead inthe relative score is above 0. The EU27 has a performance lead if the relative score for the indicator is below 0and a performance lead if the relative score is above 0. Relative annual growth as compared to that of theEU27 over a 5-year period.FIGURE 15: EU27-CANADA COMPARISON Perform ance lead/gap Canada Change lead/gap Canada Do cto rate degrees -0.2 7% Do cto rate degrees Tertiary educatio n 0.9 Tertiary educatio n 0% Internatio nal co -publicatio ns N/A Internatio nal co -publ. M o st cited publicatio ns N/A M o st cited publicatio ns R&D exp. public secto r 0.2 R&D exp. public secto r -2% R&D exp. business secto r -0.2 R&D exp. business -5% P ublic-private co -publicatio ns 0.6 P ublic-private co -publ. -1% P CT patents -0.3 P CT patents -1% P CT patents so cietal ch. 0.1 P CT patents so cietal ch. 0% M edium-high-tech expo rts -0.3 M edium-high-tech exp. -3% Kno wledge-int. services exp. -0.3 KIS expo rts 4% License and patent revenues -0.5 License and patent rev. -6% -1 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 .2 0.4 0.8 1.2 -10% -5% 0% 5% 10%A country has a performance lead if the relative score for the indicator is below 0 and a performance lead inthe relative score is above 0. The EU27 has a performance lead if the relative score for the indicator is below 0and a performance lead if the relative score is above 0. Relative annual growth as compared to that of theEU27 over a 5-year period.The EU27 has a small performance lead over Canada and this lead has been increasing.Canada is performing better in 4 indicators, in particular in Tertiary education and Public-private co-publications. In PCT patent applications, Medium and high-tech productexports, Knowledge-intensive services exports and License and patent revenues fromabroad Canada is showing the largest performance gap towards the EU27. Canada’s leadin Tertiary education has remained stable and its lead in R&D expenditure in the publicsector and Public-private co-publications has decreased. The EU27 has increased its leadin R&D expenditure in the business sector, PCT patents, Medium and high-tech product 18
  20. 20. exports and License and patent revenues from abroad; the EU27 lead has decreased inDoctorate degrees and Knowledge-intensive services exports.The EU27 has a performance lead over Australia and this lead has remained stable.Australia is performing better in 5 indicators, in particular in Doctorate degrees andTertiary education. In Medium and high-tech product exports, Knowledge-intensiveservices exports and License and patent revenues from abroad Australia is showing thelargest performance gap towards the EU27. Australia has increased its lead in Doctoratedegrees, Tertiary education and R&D expenditure in the business sector; Australia’s leadhas decreased in R&D expenditure in the public sector and PCT patents in societalchallenges. The EU27 has increased its lead in PCT patents, Medium and high-techproduct exports and License and patent revenues from abroad; the EU27 lead hasdecreased in Public-private co-publications and Knowledge-intensive services exports.FIGURE 16: EU27-AUSTRALIA COMPARISON Perform ance lead/gap Australia Change lead/gap Australia Do cto rate degrees 0.3 1% Do cto rate degrees Tertiary educatio n 0.4 Tertiary educatio n 1% Internatio nal co -publicatio ns N/A Internatio nal co -publ. M o st cited publicatio ns N/A M o st cited publicatio ns R&D exp. public secto r 0.1 R&D exp. public secto r -2% R&D exp. business secto r 0.1 R&D exp. business 5% P ublic-private co -publicatio ns -0.4 P ublic-private co -publ. 7% P CT patents -0.3 P CT patents -5% P CT patents so cietal ch. 0.1 P CT patents so cietal ch. -3% M edium-high-tech expo rts -0.8 M edium-high-tech exp. -8% Kno wledge-int. services exp. -0.6 KIS expo rts 3% License and patent revenues -0.9 License and patent rev. -3% -1 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 .2 0.4 0.8 1.2 -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10%A country has a performance lead if the relative score for the indicator is below 0 and a performance lead inthe relative score is above 0. The EU27 has a performance lead if the relative score for the indicator is below 0and a performance lead if the relative score is above 0. Relative annual growth as compared to that of theEU27 over a 5-year period.FIGURE 17: EU27-RUSSIA COMPARISON Perform ance lead/gap Russia Change lead/gap Russia Do cto rate degrees -0.1 0% Do cto rate degrees Tertiary educatio n 1.1 Tertiary educatio n -1% Internatio nal co -publicatio ns -0.8 -7% Internatio nal co -publ. M o st cited publicatio ns -0.8 M o st cited publicatio ns -1% R&D exp. public secto r -0.4 R&D exp. public secto r 5% R&D exp. business secto r -0.4 R&D exp. business 0% P ublic-private co -publicatio ns -0.9 P ublic-private co -publ. -1% P CT patents -0.9 P CT patents -10% P CT patents so cietal ch. -0.9 P CT patents so cietal ch. 0% M edium-high-tech expo rts -0.8 M edium-high-tech exp. 0% Kno wledge-int. services exp. -0.1 KIS expo rts -1% License and patent revenues -0.9 License and patent rev. 3% -1 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 .2 0.4 0.8 1.2 -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10%A country has a performance lead if the relative score for the indicator is below 0 and a performance lead inthe relative score is above 0. The EU27 has a performance lead if the relative score for the indicator is below 0and a performance lead if the relative score is above 0. Relative annual growth as compared to that of theEU27 over a 5-year period.The EU27 has a clear performance lead compared to all five BRICS countries. This leadhas decreased with China, remained stable with India, Russia and South Africa and hasincreased with Brazil.The EU27 is performing better than Russia in most indicators. Only in Tertiary educationRussia is performing much better. Russia is lagging most in Public-private co-publications, PCT patent applications, PCT patent applications in societal challenges andLicense and patent revenues from abroad. Russia’s lead in Tertiary education hasdecreased. Russia has decreased its gap in R&D expenditure in the public sector and 19
  21. 21. License and patent revenues from abroad; Russia’s gap has increased for Internationalco-publications, Most cited publications, Public-private co-publications, PCT patents andKnowledge-intensive services exports.The EU27 is performing better than China in most indicators. Only in Medium and high-tech product exports China is performing better. China is lagging most in Public-privateco-publications and License and patent revenues from abroad. China’s lead in Mediumand high-tech product exports has increased. China has decreased its gap in Tertiaryeducation, International co-publications, Public-private co-publications, PCT patents, PCTpatents in societal challenges, Knowledge-intensive services exports and License andpatent revenues from broad; China’s gap has increased for R&D expenditure in thepublic sector.FIGURE 18: EU27-CHINA COMPARISON Perform ance lead/gap China Change lead/gap China Do cto rate degrees N/A Do cto rate degrees Tertiary educatio n -0.7 Tertiary educatio n 2% Internatio nal co -publicatio ns -0.9 8% Internatio nal co -publ. M o st cited publicatio ns -0.4 M o st cited publicatio ns 0% R&D exp. public secto r -0.4 R&D exp. public secto r -1% R&D exp. business secto r 0.0 R&D exp. business 6% P ublic-private co -publicatio ns -1.0 P ublic-private co -publ. 20% P CT patents -0.7 P CT patents 18% P CT patents so cietal ch. -0.8 P CT patents so cietal ch. 2% M edium-high-tech expo rts 0.2 M edium-high-tech exp. 1% Kno wledge-int. services exp. -0.3 KIS expo rts 4% License and patent revenues -1.0 License and patent rev. 10% -1 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 .2 0.4 0.8 1.2 -10% 0% 10% 20% 30%A country has a performance lead if the relative score for the indicator is below 0 and a performance lead inthe relative score is above 0. The EU27 has a performance lead if the relative score for the indicator is below 0and a performance lead if the relative score is above 0. Relative annual growth as compared to that of theEU27 over a 5-year period.FIGURE 19: EU27-INDIA COMPARISON Perform ance lead/gap India Change lead/gap India Do cto rate degrees N/A Do cto rate degrees Tertiary educatio n -0.7 -2% Tertiary educatio n Internatio nal co -publicatio ns -1.0 Internatio nal co -publ. 4% M o st cited publicatio ns -0.4 M o st cited publicatio ns 1% 1 R&D exp. public secto r -0.6 R&D exp. public secto r -5% R&D exp. business secto r -0.7 R&D exp. business 1% P ublic-private co -publicatio ns -1.0 P ublic-private co -publ. 14% P CT patents N/A P CT patents P CT patents so cietal ch. -0.8 P CT patents so cietal ch. -1 % 1 M edium-high-tech expo rts -0.5 M edium-high-tech exp. 5% Kno wledge-int. services exp. 0.6 KIS expo rts 0% License and patent revenues -1 .0 License and patent rev. -2% -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 -20% -10% 0% 10% 20%A country has a performance lead if the relative score for the indicator is below 0 and a performance lead inthe relative score is above 0. The EU27 has a performance lead if the relative score for the indicator is below 0and a performance lead if the relative score is above 0. Relative annual growth as compared to that of theEU27 over a 5-year period.India is lagging in most indicators, in particular in International co-publications, Public-private co-publications and License and patent revenues from abroad. India’sperformance in Knowledge-intensive services exports is well above that of the EU27.India’s lead in Knowledge-intensive services exports has remained stable. India hasdecreased its gap in International co-publications, Most cited publications, Public-privateco-publications and Medium and high-tech product exports; India’s gap has increased forTertiary education, R&D expenditure in the public sector, PCT patents in societalchallenges and License and patent revenues from abroad. 20
  22. 22. Brazil is lagging in most indicators, in particular in Public-private co-publications, PCTpatent applications in societal challenges and License and patent revenues from abroad.Brazil’s performance in Knowledge-intensive services exports is above that of the EU27.Brazil’s lead in Knowledge-intensive services exports has increased. Brazil has decreasedits gap in Tertiary education, International co-publications, Most cited publications, R&Dexpenditure in the public sector, Public-private co-publications, PCT patents in societalchallenges and License and patent revenues from abroad; Brazil’s gap has increased forDoctorate degrees, R&D expenditure in the business sector and Medium and high-techproduct exports.South Africa is lagging in all indicators, in particular in Public-private co-publications andLicense and patent revenues from abroad. South Africa’s gap has increased for almost allindicators.FIGURE 20: EU27-BRAZIL COMPARISON Perform ance lead/gap Brazil Change lead/gap Brazil Do cto rate degrees -0.6 Do cto rate degrees -20% Tertiary educatio n -0.6 4% Tertiary educatio n Internatio nal co -publicatio ns -0.8 Internatio nal co -publ. 1% M o st cited publicatio ns -0.5 M o st cited publicatio ns 2% R&D exp. public secto r -0.2 R&D exp. public secto r 1% R&D exp. business secto r -0.6 R&D exp. business -1% P ublic-private co -publicatio ns -0.9 P ublic-private co -publ. 16% P CT patents N/A P CT patents P CT patents so cietal ch. -0.9 P CT patents so cietal ch. 1% M edium-high-tech expo rts -0.5 M edium-high-tech exp. -8% Kno wledge-int. services exp. 0.2 KIS expo rts 5% License and patent revenues -1 .0 License and patent rev. 2% -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20%A country has a performance lead if the relative score for the indicator is below 0 and a performance lead inthe relative score is above 0. The EU27 has a performance lead if the relative score for the indicator is below 0and a performance lead if the relative score is above 0. Relative annual growth as compared to that of theEU27 over a 5-year period.FIGURE 21: EU27-SOUTH AFRICA COMPARISON Perform ance lead/gap South Africa Change lead/gap South Africa Do cto rate degrees N/A -0.5 Do cto rate degrees Tertiary educatio n -2% Tertiary educatio n Internatio nal co -publicatio ns N/A Internatio nal co -publ. M o st cited publicatio ns N/A M o st cited publicatio ns R&D exp. public secto r -0.5 -2% R&D exp. public secto r R&D exp. business secto r -0.6 R&D exp. business -1% P ublic-private co -publicatio ns -0.9 P ublic-private co -publ. -4% P CT patents -0.7 P CT patents -5% P CT patents so cietal ch. 0.0 P CT patents so cietal ch. M edium-high-tech expo rts -0.3 M edium-high-tech exp. -1% Kno wledge-int. services exp. N/A KIS expo rts License and patent revenues -1 .0 License and patent rev. -7% -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 -10% -8% -6% -4% -2% 0%A country has a performance lead if the relative score for the indicator is below 0 and a performance lead inthe relative score is above 0. The EU27 has a performance lead if the relative score for the indicator is below 0and a performance lead if the relative score is above 0. Relative annual growth as compared to that of theEU27 over a 5-year period. 21
  23. 23. 5. PERFORMANCE PER INDICATORThis section will discuss static and dynamic performance for each of the indicators. In thefollowing plots normalised scores are also displayed. Normalised scores are obtained bytransforming raw data such that the minimum value equals zero and the maximum valueequals one.1.1.1 New doctorate graduates (ISCED6) per 1000 population aged 25-34 New doctorate graduates per 1000 population aged 25-34 4.0 1.000 Indicator 3.5 0.900 Normalised scores 0.800 3.0 Normalised scores 0.700 2.5 Indicator 0.600 2.0 0.500 1.5 0.400 0.300 1.0 0.200 0.5 0.100 0.0 0.000 CYM TTRM K LV RSB G IS EE GR P L HRHU LT ES RO B ECZ EU FR IE SI IT DK NL NO A TSK UK DE P T FI SE CHNo data for Luxembourg. Statistical outlier: SwitzerlandThe indicator is a measure of the supply of new second-stage tertiary graduates in allfields of training. For most countries ISCED 6 captures PhD graduates only, with theexception of Finland, Portugal and Sweden where also non-PhD degrees leading to anaward of an advanced research qualification are included. In 2009 more than 3 new PhDgraduates per 1000 people aged 25 to 34 were awarded in Sweden and Switzerland. Theaverage rate for the EU27 was 1.5.Growth performanceMalta and Iceland have been rapidly increasing their graduation rates over the last 5years. Graduation rates have declined in Finland and Poland. Growth performance for New doctorate graduates per 1000 population 35% aged 25-34 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% -5% -10% P L FI CY CH DE A T P T UK ES EU EE GR RS B E RO B G SI FR IE LV CZ HU LT SE NL DK NO M K IT TR HR SK IS M TNo data for Luxembourg. 22

×