This document discusses challenges in developing a global database of comparable innovation statistics. While more countries are conducting innovation surveys, differences in methodologies make comparisons difficult. Harmonizing guidelines from the Oslo Manual could help, but true compliance is needed. Caution is advised in global comparisons, especially for countries without grossed up results. Policy recommendations should not be based solely on basic indicators from innovation surveys due to these challenges.

1. 1. Despite the increase in the number of countries conducting innovation surveys, the use of innovation
indicators for comparisons remains a challenge, mainly due to variations in methodological procedures.
2. The enhancement of the Oslo Manual guidelines is expected to facilitate countries’ understanding and
use of the Manual. Nonetheless, the harmonization of international innovation statistics requires that coun-
tries carrying out innovation surveys truly comply with these guidelines.
3. For the moment, caution is advised when making global comparisons, particularly when dealing with
countries that do not have grossed up results. Likewise, policy recommendations should not be drafted
based uniquely on the results shown by these basic innovation indicators.
DEVELOPING A GLOBAL DATABASE
OF COMPARABLE INNOVATION STATISTICS: PROGRESS AND PROBLEMS
Poster prepared by: Luciana Marins, Martin Schaaper and Lora Milusheva
OECD Blue Sky III, Ghent - Belgium, September 2016
INTRODUCTION
Committed to increase the availability of timely, accurate and policy-relevant science, technology and innovation statistics, the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) has
been formally engaged in the production of innovation indicators since 2010. To date, one pilot data collection and two global data collections have been carried out. This
poster presents basic indicators produced by the UIS, covering innovation in manufacturing firms in 71 countries, which are arranged into two groups according to their
income levels: i) 38 high-income countries and ii) 33 low- and middle-income countries.
SHARE OF INNOVATORS
INNOVATION ACTIVITIES
Marketing innovation is the most common form of innovation in 11 high-income countries, while product and process innovations prevail in 10 high-income countries
(Figure 1). In low- and middle-income countries (Figure 2), the prevailing types of innovation are process innovation and organizational innovation, even with the ob-
served lack of data on the latter. Overall, the share of innovators among manufacturing firms varies from 0.5% (process innovators in Hong Kong Special Administrative Re-
gion) to 72% (product innovators in Ghana).
The acquisition of machinery, equipment and software is the predominant innovation activity in both groups of countries, being performed by 92% of the innovation-
active firms in Cyprus and 95% of the innovation-active firms in the Russian Federation and Ethiopia. Internal R&D is the runner-up activity in the two groups of countries.
In 18 out of 33 high-income countries (around 55%), this activity is performed by more than one-half of the firms. This is observed in 13 out of 32 low- and middle-income
countries (42%) for which data are available. In addition, training (included in the category Other, together with the market introduction of innovations and other prepara-
tions) is the prevailing activity in four low- and middle-income countries, which are all from Africa: Tanzania (96%), Kenya (82%), Ghana (80%) and Uganda (74%).
Main methodological challenges to produce reliable
and internationally comparable innovation indicators:
♦ Industrial coverage of national surveys;
♦ Size classification;
♦ Cut-off point;
♦ Type of data (survey data versus grossed up data);
♦ Observation period;
♦ Definitions (innovation-active firms, cooperation);
♦ Questionnaire design (order of questions, scales).
Source:
UNESCO Institute for Statistics: http://www.uis.unesco.org/DataCentre
CHALLENGES FINAL REMARKS