Dr. marcin piatkowski

1,676 views
1,648 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,676
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Innovation support forenterpriseshas increased dramatically, risk averse. The current system and the proposed PRP is fragmented - 5 different agencies/ ministries manage 22 various support programs, responsible for almost 80% of all innovation support for the period 2007-13 (EUR 7 billion).For potential applicants sorting out the innovation system is overwhelming and they face long delays in the selection processThe efficiency of the public support is also reduced by the formalistic and primarily paper-based selection process. Due to over fragmentation of programs and complex application procedures, consulting companies prepare grant applications that appeal to the reviewer, emphasizing form over substance.The system of monitoring and evaluation is in dire need of reform. Unclear program objectives make it often impossible to establish impact evaluation programs. The numerous existing impact evaluationsdo not always employ methodologies (e.g., based on randomization) that are rigorous enough to produce credible results. There is no established feedback mechanism from the monitoring system to the agencies administering programs, andto the policy -makers in charge of modernizing instruments and programs.Decisions on funding are biased towards financing low-risk capital expenditures, neglecting funding to risky early stages of the innovation process.
  • Innovation support forenterpriseshas increased dramatically, risk averse. The current system and the proposed PRP is fragmented - 5 different agencies/ ministries manage 22 various support programs, responsible for almost 80% of all innovation support for the period 2007-13 (EUR 7 billion).For potential applicants sorting out the innovation system is overwhelming and they face long delays in the selection processThe efficiency of the public support is also reduced by the formalistic and primarily paper-based selection process. Due to over fragmentation of programs and complex application procedures, consulting companies prepare grant applications that appeal to the reviewer, emphasizing form over substance.The system of monitoring and evaluation is in dire need of reform. Unclear program objectives make it often impossible to establish impact evaluation programs. The numerous existing impact evaluationsdo not always employ methodologies (e.g., based on randomization) that are rigorous enough to produce credible results. There is no established feedback mechanism from the monitoring system to the agencies administering programs, andto the policy -makers in charge of modernizing instruments and programs.Decisions on funding are biased towards financing low-risk capital expenditures, neglecting funding to risky early stages of the innovation process.
  • Enterprises are facing a funding gap:In their innovation activities they rely mostly on their own funds In business enterprise R&D dominant are enterprises’ own funds, with little involvement of foreign and public fundsThe funding gap is not filled by public funds
  • Dr. marcin piatkowski

    1. 1. The World Bank Europe and Central Asia Region Finance and Private Sector Development “The €10 billion question”:How to most effectively support enterprise innovation in Poland Dr. Marcin Piątkowski Senior Economist The World Bank EU - Israel Seminar on Technology Transfer Tel Aviv, November 25-26, 2012 1
    2. 2. Poland has been growing much faster than peers, also during the crisis… Figure: Real GDP per capita growth 1990-2010, (1990 = 100) Figure: EU27 output level in 2Q2011, 2007=100220 Czech Republic Hungary Poland 115200 110180 105 100160 95140 90120 85 80100 75 LV PT SI FI CY BE IE CZ IT FR BG MT LT LU AT SK PL GR DK UK SE DE HU EE ES RO NL 80 Source: IBS based on OECD Source: EC Autumn Forecasts 2011, World Bank 2
    3. 3. Despite stagnant R&D expenditures… Private sector R&D spending % of GDP Germany 2.0 1.5 Total R&D spending Slovenia % of GDP Czech Rep. 1.0 Hungary 3.0 Germany Slovakia Poland 0.5 2.5 Romania Bulgaria Slovenia 2.0 Czech Rep. 0.0 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Hungary 1.5 Public and scientific sector R&D spending Bulgaria % of GDP 1.0 1.0 Slovakia Germany 0.9 Poland Romania 0.8 0.5 Slovenia 0.7 Czech Rep. 0.6 Poland 0.0 0.5 Hungary 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 0.4 Bulgaria 0.3 Slovakia 0.2 Romania 0.1 0.0 3 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010Source: Eurostat
    4. 4. And low public innovation outputs Figure: Assessment of the Amount and Quality of Public R&D Spending in EU-27 Source: Economic Papers 382, DG Economic & Financial Affairs, July 2009. 2Source: European Commission (2010)
    5. 5. Poland has an elaborate public support system….. Figure: Public support instruments, 2007-2013Source: IBS 5
    6. 6. … that distributes almost €10 billion euro of EU and national funds Figure: Total budget for public support instruments, 2007-2013, in PLNSource: IBS 6
    7. 7. However, most spending on low-tech rather than high- tech and on capital investments in large companies Share of public support for private R&D Structure of public support to innovation and capital investment under OP IE in total (OP IE only) with respect to intervention type and firm size expenditures, 2008-201025% 100% Private R&D 90%20% Capital investment 80% 70%15% 60% 50%10% 40% 30%5% 20% 10%0% 0% Low and medium-low tech manufacturing Medium-high and high tech manufacturing Private R&D Capital investment Source: IBS Big Medium Small Micro 7
    8. 8. Capital acquisition (i.e. technology absorption) is higher than in peers and more developed economies Structure of innovative activities of enterprises in Poland and comparator countries (in 2008, by expenditure) Poland Acquisition of Central Europe Acquisition of other external other external knowledge knowledge 2% 3% Acquisition of machinery, equipment and software Acquisition of 87% machinery, Intramural R&D equipment and 8% software Intramural R&D 59% 23% Extramural R&D Extramural R&D 3% 15% France Czech Republic Acquisition of other external Acquisition of knowledge other external 2% knowledge 6% Acquisition of machinery, equipment and software 60% Intramural R&D 23% Acquisition of machinery, Intramural R&D equipment and 60% software 18% Extramural R&D 15% Extramural R&D 16% 8Source: IBS based on the EU CIS
    9. 9. Support systems needs to change to allow higher spending on innovation Figure: GDP per capita and total R&D spending, in % of GDP, 2008 4 3.5 3 2.5 EU15 2 1.5 1 0.5 POLAND 0 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Notes: Horizontal axis – GDP per capita in thousands of PPS (Purchasing Power Standard) in 2008 in a sample of 35 countries (EU-27, EFTA, US, Japan andKorea). Vertical axis – total expenditure on R&D as percentage of GDP in 2008.Source: IBS
    10. 10. Our recommendations 10
    11. 11. Polands needs to…• Start moving from supporting absorption to supporting innovation: – Re-focus matching grants on early stages of the innovation process (R&D, proof of concept and prototyping, mentoring) rather than capital investment• Scale down absorption grants in favor of market-based instruments: – Revolving financial instruments, technology credit for creditworthy companies and first loss guarantees for less creditworthy firms.• Strenghten institutional capacity: – Re-assingn responsibility within public implementation agencies with regards to technology absorption, innovation, R&D finance, entrepreneurship support.• Reduce public sector’s risk aversion: – change incentives to allow for commercial failure, involve the private sector
    12. 12. And …• Shift the focus of incubation services: – the scaling-up stage rather than the pre-incubation stage. Incubators to take an equity stake in the start-ups.• Change the selection process in public/EU funding: – focus on project innovativeness, eliminate irrelevant criteria, introduce selection committees, use ex ante impact evaluation to test new approaches, accept failure• Improve monitoring and impact evaluation: – design selection processes with impact evaluation in mind, set clear objectives, assign clear responsibility to policymakers• Enhance incentive systems for researchers to collaborate with business: – promote success, increase private share in IP ownership rights, show leadership in “naming and shaming”; subsidize R&D trainee programs
    13. 13. And finally…• Promote international flow of talent: – expand scholarships for researchers to study abroad and to return home, expand the role of foreign experts, promote highly qualified immigration• Support human capital development in the private sector: – cost-share training expanses with the private sector (PPP).• Increase competition: – promote single EU market, improve the business environment to lower entry barriers to startups• Promote R&D intensive FDI: – increase the budget of PAIIZ, focus on R&D, enhance diplomatic support• Stimulate international knowledge-sharing: – support participation in technology conferences, study tours and workshops abroad• Keep the real exchange rate at a competitive level
    14. 14. THANK YOU!14
    15. 15. Inefficient public support for private R&D Figure: Structure of R&D financing in Poland, by sectors, 2008 100% 5,5% 6,3% 4,5% 0,1% 0,3% 90% 6,3% 17,8% 80% 3,3% 70% 60% 83,2% 50% 87,9% 40% 72,6% 30% 20% 10% 12,3% 0% Government sector Higher education sector Business enterprise sector Government Business enterprise Higher education sector AbroadSource: IBS 15
    16. 16. Mostly funded by EU funds Figure: Public innovation-related spending, billion PLN 6 EU National government Percentage of GDP 0,50% 0,45% 5 0,40% 0,35% 4 0,30% 3 0,25% 0,20% 2 0,15% 0,10% 1 0,05% 0 0,00% 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 16Source: IBS

    ×