support to smes increasing research and innovation in smes ...€¦ · comp competitiveness and...

Support to SMEs ndash Increasing

Research and Innovation in SMEs and

SME Development

Second Intermediate Report

Work Package 2

Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes

2007-2013 focusing on the European Regional

Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund (CF)

Contract 2014CE16BAT002

17 September 2015

Submitted by

CSIL in partnership with CSES and ZEW

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy Directorate B - Policy

Unit B2 Evaluation and European Semester

Contact Marielle Richeacute

E-mail REGIO-EVALeceuropaeu

European Commission

B-1049 Brussels

3


September ndash 2015

4

This report is part of a study carried out by a Team selected by the Evaluation Unit DG

Regional and Urban Policy European Commission through a call for tenders by open

procedure No 2014CE16BAT002

The consortium selected comprises CSIL ndash Centre for Industrial Studies (lead partner

Italy) CSES ndash Centre for Strategy amp Evaluation Services (UK) and ZEW ndash Centre for

European Economic Research (Germany)

Subcontracting companies are CASE ndash Center for Social and Economic Research

(Poland) INFYDE ndash Informatioacuten y Desarrollo SL (Spain) Visionary Analytics (Lithuania)

and WIFO ndash OumlsterreichischesInstitutfuumlrWirtschaftsforschung (Austria)

The Core Team comprises

Scientific Director Massimo Florio CSIL and University of Milan

Project Manager Julie Pellegrin CSIL

Advisory Committee Brad Graeme Philip Astbury (University of Melbourne) Harvey Armstrong (University of Sheffield) David Audretsch (Indiana University) Mateja Dermastia (Anteja ECG) and Robert Picciotto (Kings College)

Senior experts Laura Delponte (CSIL) Georg Licht (ZEW) James Rampton (CSES) and Davide Sartori (CSIL)

Task managers Silvia Vignetti (CSIL) Mike Coye (CSES) Emanuela Sirtori (CSIL) Mark Whittle (CSES) Julie Pellegrin (CSIL)

Statistical Experts Donatella Cheri (CSIL) Stefania Pelizzari (CSIL) and Silvia Salini (CSIL and University of Milan)

Junior Experts Chiara Pancotti (CSIL)

Quality manager Paola Govoni (CSIL)

A network of Country Experts provides the geographical coverage for the field analysis Viktor Kveton (CZ) Anna-Maria Krarup (DK) Mike Coyne (DK) Christian Kohler (DE) Silke Haarich (ES) Julie Pellegrin (FR) Silvia Vignetti (IT) Simonas Gausas (LT) Agnė Paliokaitė (LT) Elena Jarocinka (PL) Jan Teresiński (PL) The authors express their gratitude to the stakeholders who agreed to provide data and information The authors are also grateful for the very helpful insights from the EC staff and particularly to Veronica Gaffey Marielle Richeacute Daniel Mouqueacute and Kai Stryczynski and other members of the Steering Group The authors are responsible for any remaining errors or omissions

Quotation is authorised as long as the source is acknowledged along with the fact that

the results are provisional

5


TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 6

FOREWORD 7

1 OVERVIEW OF THE SELECTED OPERATIONAL PROGRAMMES 8

2 RESULTS OF THE SEMINAR 16

21 Targeting high vs low tech firms 16

22 Promoting widespread vs selective instruments 16

23 ERDF and the regional policy mix 17

24 Synthesis 17

3 NEXT STEP THEORY-BASED IMPACT EVALUATIONS 22

4 ANNEX SEMINAR PARTICIPANTS 27

6

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

BERD Business Expenditure in Research and Development

CONV Convergence (Cohesion Policy objective)

COMP Competitiveness and Employment (Cohesion Policy objective)

CZ Czech Republic

DE Germany

DG REGIO Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy

DK Denmark

EC European Commission

ERDF European Regional Development Fund

ES Spain

EU European Union

EUR Euro

FDI Foreign Direct Investment

FR France

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GERD Gross Expenditure in Research and Development

GVA Gross Value Added

ICT Information and Communication Technology

IT Italy

LT Lithuania

M EUR Million Euro

MA Managing Authority

MS Member State

MULTIREG Multiregional

NACE Nomenclature statistique des activiteacutes eacuteconomiques (Statistical

classification for economic activities)

NAT National

NUTS Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics

OP Operational Programme

PL Poland

RampD Research and Development

RampTD Research and technological development

REG Regional

RTDI Research technological development and innovation

SF Structural Fund

SME Small and medium enterprise

TBIE Theory-based impact evaluation

ToR Terms of Reference

WP Work package

7

FOREWORD

This is the Second Intermediate Report of the ex-post evaluation of Support to Small and

Medium Enterprises (SMEs) ndash Increasing Research and Innovation in SMEs and SME

development The objective of the evaluation is to assess the effectiveness and the impact of

the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) with regards to support for innovation and

the development of SMEs in the European Union over the 2007-2013 programming period

This report presents the results of Tasks 3 and 5 ie the eight case studies in selected

regions and the stakeholder seminar organised in Brussels the 29th of April 2015 to discuss

the findings from the different tasks and especially from the case studies The volume at hand

contains an overview of the eight selected case studies as well as an overview of the

organisation and results of the seminar while the eight case studies form separate self-

standing reports

8

1 OVERVIEW OF THE SELECTED OPERATIONAL PROGRAMMES

This Chapter provides an introductory overview of Operational Programmes (OPs) supporting

the growth and innovation processes of Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) which are

subject of the case studies included and discussed in this report

The Terms of Reference indicate a list of 50 Operational Programmes co-financed in the period

2007-2013 by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) in 23 EU Member States All

50 OPs and policy instruments targeted to SMEs included therein have been examined The

results of this preliminary analysis are included in the First Intermediate Report From the full

list of 50 OPs the evaluation team has selected 8 OPs for a more in-depth analysis which are

1 Italy ndash Apulia (2007IT161PO010) carried out as a pilot case study

2 France ndash Icircle-de-France (2007FR162PO012)

3 Germany ndash Sachsen (2007DE161PO004)

4 Denmark - Innovation and Knowledge (2007DK162PO001)

5 Spain ndash Castilla y Leoacuten (2007ES162PO009)

6 Czech Republic ndash Business and Innovation (2007CZ161PO004)

7 Poland ndash Innovative Economy (2007PL161PO001)

8 Lithuania ndash Economic Growth (2007LT161PO002)

These OPs have been selected in order to fulfil the following conditions

to ensure a balance between regional and national cases

to ensure a balance between Convergence and regional Competitiveness objectives

also between EU 12 and EU 15

to include territories with different SME typologies

to account for strategies based on different mixes of policy instruments

the presence of a collaborative Managing Authority in order to ease data collection

The result of the selection is a list of Programmes which constitute a purposeful set that

assures the greatest representativeness in terms of socio-economic context and regional

strategy and offers the opportunity to discover relevant lessons on mechanisms concerning

SME support

9

Figure 1 Map of OPs selected for in-depth study

Denmark ndash Innovation

and knowledge

(2007DK162PO001)

Germany ndash Saxony

(2007DE161PO004)

France ndash Icircle-de-France

(2007FR162PO012)

Spain ndash Castilla y Leoacuten

(2007ES162PO009)

Italy ndash Apulia

(2007IT161PO010)

Lithuania ndash Economic

Growth

(2007LT161PO002)

Czech Republic ndash

Business and Innovation

(2007CZ161PO004)

Poland ndash Innovative

Economy

(2007PL161PO001)

Source CSIL

These eight OPs have been evaluated in order to enrich the preliminary hypotheses derived in

Task 1 on the mix of policy instruments adopted to promote SME growth and innovation across

the EU and on their outcomes The diversity of OPs included in the sample allows to account

for different regional and national specificities thus bringing context variables more forcefully

into the picture

In particular the selection of OPs both at regional (such as Apulia or Saxony the former at

NUTS 2 level the latter at NUTS 1 level) and national level (such as the Polish or Danish

programme) in eight different countries allows providing a panorama of different institutional

context features and regional innovation systems in place which can play an important role on

the delivery mechanisms of support along with their effectiveness The analysis encompasses

areas which have been touched to a different extent by the economic recession and which

belong to different Cohesion Policy objectives which is likely to affect their capacity to react to

the crisis and overcome structural barriers hindering SME development and innovativeness

The number of SMEs based in the areas targeted by the OPs range from nearly two hundred

thousand as in Saxony or in small countries such as Denmark and Lithuania to almost or

more than 1 million as in the Czech Republic and Poland This variance is reflected in the

volume of ERDF contribution dedicated to SMEs which is highest in Poland and Czech Republic

However the sample includes also an example of OP which dedicates a relatively limited

amount of ERDF to SMEs in spite of the large number of SMEs in the region it is the OP of Icircle-

de-France

10

Table 1 Eight Operational Programmes observed

OP

Cohesion

Policy

objective

EU 12

(ldquoNewrdquo

Member

States) or

EU15 (ldquoOld

Member

States)

NUTS level

Volume of EU

contribution for WP2

themes (EUR

million)

of EU contribution

for WP2 themes over

total contrib for

the OP

Total

population

of the area

covered by

the OP

GDP (PPS)

per capita

(average

2007-2011)

(EUR)

Total

number of

SMEs ()

Total

intramural

expenditure

in RampD

(GERD) ndash

2007-2011

average

Business

expenditure

in RampD

(BERD) ndash

2007-2011

average

1 Italy ndash Apulia Convergence EU15 NUTS 2 region

645 25 4 million 16640 218 thousand

(in 2011)

075 of

GDP

017 of

GDP

2 France ndash Icircle-

de-France

Competitiveness

and Employment EU15

NUTS 2

region 60 42 118 million 43360

727 thousand

(in 2011)

298 of

GDP

198 of

GDP

3 Germany -

Saxony Convergence EU15

NUTS 2


140 thousand

(in 2012)

277 of

GDP

131 of

GDP

4 Denmark - Innovation and

knowledge

Competitiveness and Employment

EU15 NUTS 0 country

203

82

55 million 30660 213 thousand

(in 2013)

274 of

GDP

187 of

GDP

5 Spain ndash Castilla

y Leoacuten

Competitiveness

and Employment EU15

NUTS 2


131 thousand

(in 2013)

109 of

GDP

061 of

GDP

6 Czech Republic - Business and

Innovation

Convergence EU12

NUTS 0

(except capital city

region)


(in 2013)

112 of

GDP

078 of

GDP

7 Poland - Innovative

Economy

Convergence EU12 NUTS 0 country

5287 62 38 million 14740 15 million (in

2013)

066 of

GDP

020 of

GDP

8 Lithuania -

Economic

Growth

Convergence EU12 NUTS 0

country 760 25 3 million 15440

115 thousand

(in 2013)

085 of

GDP

024 of

GDP

Source Eurostat and EC Performance Review 2014

Note () CSIL elaboration of National Statistical Office data (NACE sectors B-N excl K)

11

As shown in Table 1 the heterogeneity of areas covered by the case studies can be highlighted

also if considering the total intramural RampD expenditure or business RampD expenditure

According to the Global Innovation Index 2014 (Cornell University INSEAD and WIPO 2014)1

which combines innovation input measures and output measures the EU areas of the sample

cover a wide range or ranking categories (see Table 2 below)

Table 2 Global Innovation Index ranking ndash 2014

Global Innovation Index 2014 ranking

Top 10 11-20 21-30 31-40 40-60

UK Ireland Austria Cyprus Croatia

Sweden Germany France Italy Bulgaria

Finland Belgium Portugal Poland

Netherlands Estonia Latvia Greece

Denmark Malta Hungary Romania

Luxembourg Czech Republic

Slovakia

Spain Lithuania

Slovenia

Note The eight case studies are indicated by the asterisks

Source CSIL based on Cornell University INSEAD and WIPO (2014)

A more focused picture can be obtained using data from the Innovation Union Scoreboard

2012 covering the years 2007 ndash 2011 which ranks not only Member States but also regions in

terms of their performance against a set of indicators of innovation2 Specifically it places

countries and regions in four categories distinguishing between lsquoleadersrsquo lsquofollowersrsquo those

with a moderate lsquoperformancersquo and those lsquocatching-uprsquo Table 3 shows the position attributed

by the Scoreboard to the target area that have been examined in case studies

Table 3 Innovation Scoreboard Attribution

Leader Follower Moderate Modest

Catching-up

Denmark

Icircle-de-France

Saxony

Castile amp Leoacuten

Czech Republic

Poland

Apulia

Lithuania

Source European Innovation Scoreboard 2007 amp Regional Innovation Scoreboard 2012 Note Convergence region

Other regions Competitiveness amp Employment

According to the analysis of the SME-related policy instruments performed as part of Task 1

the eight OPs account for different intervention strategies as reflected in the mix of policy

instruments implemented (Figure 2) and the mode of delivery of such instruments (Figure 3)

Actually the sample includes some OPs whose primary aim is to promote business creation

and development (such as the Czech Spain Italian and Lithuanian OPs) others where public

expenditure is more concentrated on support for RampD projects (such as the German and the

1 Cornell University INSEAD and WIPO (2014) The Global Innovation Index 2014 The Human Factor In innovation

Fontainebleau Ithaca and Geneva 2 The Regional Innovation Scoreboard 2012 applies the same methodology as far as it was possible to Member State

and regions Because of data availability problems at a regional level it was not possible to exactly replicate the

methodology but the results obtained were checked for consistency with the national level scoreboard One other

change was that those regions appearing in the last category were referred to as having lsquomodestrsquo innovation

performance

12

French OPs) for increasing technological and non-technological innovation (Polish OP) One OP

is focused on increasing networking and knowledge and technology transfer (Danish OP)

Figure 2 Paid amount by type of policy instruments in the eight OPs

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

CZ - CzechRepublic

DE - Saxony DK - Denmark ES - Castilla yLeoacuten

FR - Icircle deFrance

IT - Apulia LT - Lithuania PL - Poland

Support for RampD projects

Support for improving capacities

Networking

Knowledge and technology transfer

Internationalisation and visibility

Infrastructures and related services

Generic access to finance

Development of technological or non-technological innovation

Creation of innovative companies

Business creation and development

Access and diffusion of ICT

Note paid amount refers to both ERDF and public funds paid to beneficiaries

The public support has been largely delivered in the form of grants in five out of the eight

considered OPs which is in line with the predominance of traditional direct support across the

entire EU There are however some exceptions in Lithuania and especially Poland more

often public support has been conveyed through packages of support usually combining

grants with consulting services Equity finance is quite relevant in Icircle-de-France Lithuania and

Saxony while some preference for using repayable financial support can be observed in Apulia

and the Czech Republic

13

Figure 3 Paid amount by mode of delivery in the eight OPs

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

CZ - CzechRepublic

DE - Saxony

DK - Denmark

ES - Castilla yLeoacuten

FR - Icircle de France

IT - Apulia

LT - Lithuania

PL - Poland

Equity finance + Repayable financial support

Consulting services + training + search of businesspartnersConsulting advice technical assistance

Consulting advice technical assistance +Information campaing eventsEquity finance

Grants

Grants + consulting services + training

Grants + Consulting advice technical assistance

Grants + Loans + Information campaigns

Grants + Provision of infrastructure and services +Consulting advice technical assistanceGrants + training

Information campaign events seminars

Provision of infrastructure and services +Consulting advice technical assistanceProvision of infrastructures

Repayable financial support

Source CSIL elaboration Note Paid amount refers to both ERDF and public contributions

14

The eight OPs have provided of support to around 48 thousand SMEs representing 20 of the

total number of beneficiary SMEs ascribable to the full sample of 50 OPs The number of

beneficiary SMEs is the highest for the OPs of Poland and Lithuania with more than 10

thousand and 12 thousand beneficiaries on the other hand the French OP has supported less

than 300 SMEs

Figure 4 Number of beneficiary SMEs of the eight OPs

00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

PL - Poland LT - Lithuania IT - Apulia ES - Castilla yLeoacuten

CZ - CzechRepublic

DE - Saxony FR - Icircle de France

Number of beneficiary SMEs Share of beneficiary SMEs over the total number of SMEs in the target area

Source CSIL elaboration Note Missing data for Denmark since the exact number of beneficiary SMEs is not available

In order to assess the intervention strategy of the OPs besides the absolute number of

beneficiaries it is particularly interesting to look at the distribution of beneficiaries according to

their size and technology intensity The analysis on the 50 OPs has revealed that the micro

enterprises generally represent the large majority of SMEs benefiting from ERDF support

(54) followed by small (30) and medium enterprises (16) The analysis has documented

the predominantly low technological intensity of beneficiary SMEs the majority of SMEs (53)

belong to sectors with a low share of business RampD expenditure over the value added by

sector However it is also noted that almost one quarter of all beneficiaries (24) has a

medium-high technological level Medium low-tech or high tech companies represent a lower

share of all the identified beneficiaries ie 14 and 9 respectively

The proportion of beneficiary SMEs in the eight OPs provides a more diversified picture (Figure

5 and 6) The Czech OP Enterprise and Innovation has directed the public support mainly to

small and medium size companies with a fair distribution in terms of technology intensity

Conversely the regional Apulia OP target micro enterprises characterised by either a low or a

medium-high technology intensity The Lithuanian OP has mostly supported low-tech

companies without significant differentiation in terms of size

15

Figure 5 Share of beneficiary SMEs by size class in the eight OPs

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

CZ - Czech Republic(Innov)

ES - Castilla y Leoacuten FR - Icircle de France IT - Apulia LT - Lithuania PL - Poland

Micro enterprises Small enterprises Medium enterprises

Source CSIL elaboration Note Missing data for Saxony and Denmark since the size class of beneficiary SMEs is not

available

Figure 6 Share of beneficiary SMEs by technology intensity level in the eight OPs

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

CZ - CzechRepublic

DE - Saxony ES - Castilla yLeoacuten



Low tech

Medium-low tech

Medium-high tech

High tech

Source CSIL elaboration Missing data for Denmark since the level of technological intensity cannot be estimated due

to missing data on sectoral disaggregation of beneficiary SMEs

Whether the characteristics of beneficiary SMEs simply mirror the specific characteristics of the

population of SMEs in the area covered by the OPs or result from different logics of

intervention underneath the OPs or from a mix of the two possible reasons is investigated in

the case studies

16

2 RESULTS OF THE SEMINAR

The aim of a ldquostakeholder seminarrdquo held on 29th April 2015 was to present the preliminary

findings and the main issues identified in other tasks undertaken for this Work Package and

especially those emerging from the eight case studies of Operational Programmes and to

discuss the policy implications and main lessons with Commission staff the evaluation team

members (and representatives of other Work Packages) academic experts and people

involved in the implementation of the Operational Programmes on the ground (see list of

participants in Annex) The following provides an overview setting out the main highlights in

the results from the presentations of the eight case studies

The seminar was organised in relation to three themes as follows

1) Targeting high vs low tech firms the case studies of Lithuania Saxony and Poland

2) Promoting widespread vs selective instruments the case studies of Apulia Castile amp

Leon and the Czech Republic

3) ERDF and the regional policy mix the case studies of Icircle-de-France and Denmark

Other issues that it was intended to highlight during the course of the discussion included

The issue of direct versus indirect support

Economic development versus anti-cyclical intervention

Supporting enabling organisations

Supporting individual enterprises as against partnerships

21 Targeting high vs low tech firms

In Lithuania the challenge was to build competitive advantage on the basis of labour-intensive

technologies The traditional sectors were in need of upgrading and the majority of the funds

were allocated to low tech companies In Saxony there was a demand driven approach but

also a realisation that low tech firms can improve competitiveness through cost reduction

Technologyprocess upgrading as subset to innovation can be justified but concentration of

spending on RampD has established Saxony as one of the German RampD powerhouses and

contributed to market access an increase in turnover and employment growth In Poland it

was thought that for countries that are not leading technological change the returns from

innovation are particularly high in low-tech manufacturing sectors but that as a country

approaches the technological frontier the policy should focus on RampD and innovative start-up

In discussion a central question was posed where does the investment pay most

22 Promoting widespread vs selective instruments

In Apulia the strategy was adjusted through re-programming to provide broad support to

SMEs to allow them to survive during the crisis and recession a dual approach was adopted

with selective support for SMEs with the internal capacity to manage innovation processes

including demand-side measures In Castile amp Leon the impact of the crisis was also intense

and broadly-based support was necessary but there were also efforts to build up the support

infrastructure and to provide in-depth support to enterprises identified as capable of innovation

and growth In the Czech Republic there was again both broadly-based and selective support

especially to address the ldquoBranch-plant syndromerdquo (where branches of international firms allow

little room for independent development by local suppliers) There was a focus on transferring

RampD results into production by stimulating demand for RampD results with 13 of the funds

going to support for innovation activities

17

23 ERDF and the regional policy mix

The last two cases are examples of OPs for areas which are relatively prosperous and where

RampD and innovation are relatively strong The ERDF budgets however were relatively small

In the Icircle-de-France (IdF) there was a pragmatic and demand-driven implementation

palliating perceived gaps in regional public support and enlarging the available financial

support targeting high growth high tech sectors appears to pay off in the IdF context In

Denmark there was a more strategic approach which was well integrated into national

strategy but with flexible implementation with strong stakeholder involvement in 6 regional

programmes There were interesting applications of the triple helix model amp successful cluster

developments

In all cases there was comment on the strength of monitoring and evaluation systems These

varied considerably from a relatively under-developed system in Apulia to a relatively strong

one in Icircle-de-France Denmark had organised a counterfactual analysis of enterprises

supported by the OP as against similar enterprises not receiving support

24 Synthesis

241 Diversity across themes

The first impression made by the presentations was the diversity of the interventions in the

eight cases There are several dimensions to these differences beginning with the context in

which the OP was implemented where there were differences relating to

The size of the regionsMember States targeted The absolute and relative size of the Programmes within the regions and countries in which

they operated and the effects that could reasonably be expected from them The size and structure of the SME population its sectoral distribution and its capacities

and assets The economic context within which the OPs operated and especially the way that the

economic crisis impacted on each area over the course of the programming period The endowment of SME and innovation support infrastructure and culture determining the

base on which the OPs could build

In fact the detailed investigations have confirmed the importance of the specific context in

which each OP was conceived and implemented for the determination of the nature of the

policy instruments used and the results to be expected from them This context is important

for any fair assessment of the achievements or otherwise of each Programme

Nonetheless when it came to the processes used to promote SMEs and innovation the

differences could often be considered as involving variations around a series of central themes

In all the cases considered there was a strong emphasis on promoting innovation as a

central objective yet this was done in a variety of ways and had differing relationships with

the objective of SME promotion In a number of cases support for SMEs was itself very much

seen as part of this process of encouraging innovation including in the case of the Icircle-de-

France where it involved encouraging new forms of enterprise dedicated to pursuing social

innovation In other cases however there was a clear commitment to provide general support

to SMEs and especially after the extent of the economic crisis became apparent some re-

programming to ensure this

Consequently targeting policies were not as clear cut as might have been expected There

were cases where SMEs were targeted directly ndash Apulia and Castile amp Leon but even here

there was also an element of trying to ensure that enterprises that were capable of benefitting

from support were the one to receive it while elsewhere a subtle lsquosoft targetingrsquo was more

evident where the instruments were shaped to achieve a certain selectivity not by defining

exclusions but by requiring for instance a commitment to change and growth on the part of

18

participants In Denmark for example those encouraged to become members of cluster

organisations had to be interested in developing their growth potential if their participation

was to serve any purpose This in effect led to a self-exclusion by those not willing to play

along with the support offered

The nature of the instruments used to implement OPs were shaped by a number of factors

Just as the objectives of an OP must take into account a large variety of details relating to the

circumstances of the relevant region or country so the precise characteristics of the

instruments to be applied must reflect not only the particular purposes for which they are to be

used the nature of the target group to be addressed and the economic and social

circumstances of the area concerned but the legacy of past interventions as well in the form

of existing support infrastructure and the capabilities developed in preceding periods In other

words support instruments are built on past actions both for positive reasons (exploiting

existing assets) but also because of their familiarity or a certain institutional inertia In any

event the large variety of circumstances in which the particular features of instruments are

determined gives rise to a wide array of actual policy instruments The review of 50 OPs

conducted as part of the evaluation identified 648 different instruments

This large variety of specific instruments however is mainly accounted for in that they are

often designed as elaborations of well-established approaches but addressing particular needs

and circumstances and also a variety of potential targets So building capacities and

competences can be undertaken for enterprises and their managers of varying degrees of

sophistication and background knowledge and can relate to a variety of matters from technical

issues to general management marketing exporting or more specialised issues such as IP

management The process of capacity building can therefore take many forms

The extent of the provision of access to finance is complicated by the question of whether or

not the provision of direct grants counts as part of this function Some substantial sums were

provided in this form by some of the OPs However generally an expected move towards the

provision of more indirect finance ndash loans and equity through intermediaries - was not as

marked as may have been anticipated General access to finance measures (equity

guarantees and reduction of credit interest) accounted for 38 of the funds allocated by the

Lithuanian OP and repayable financial support for 26 of the Apulian OP equity finance 14

in the case of Icircle-de-France 23 for loans and 35 for equity finance in that of Saxony The

other OPs had rather small amounts devoted to indirect financial instruments if any at all An

explanation offered of the small allocations to these instruments in some OPs was that the

crisis discouraged experimentation in this area that it is relatively difficult and expensive to

manage financial instruments and outside the experience of most Managing Authorities that

relatively large sums are necessary to make any appreciable impact and that results can often

take a long time to materialise

There were considerable differences in the extent to which there was provision of direct

support to enterprises In Saxony over 90 of the funds were in the form of grants and in

Icircle-de-France and in Apulia grants largely paid directly to enterprises accounted for 56 and

41 respectively of the funds allocated In Denmark by contrast no grants were paid directly

to enterprises unless they were partners in projects receiving support for developing clusters

or relationships with universities or in a small number of cases where they received funds to

hire private sector business advisers

It is useful to distinguish between different types of direct support In Poland and in Saxony a

large proportion of the direct support was for investments in innovative undertakings In

Apulia although the main part of support went to individual enterprises or SMEs it was more

evenly split between support for investment (by micro and small firms) and investment in

research In Icircle-de-France the weight of the direct support was for research projects

19

It is also interesting that analysis of a wider group of 50 OPs shows that manufacturing firms

received 33 of support ndash much greater than their share in the economy as a whole It also

showed that more than 50 of support has been directed to low-tech firms

Different forms of business support were available across the OPs including access to public

and private sources of information and advice incubator services and assistance for exporters

Castile amp Leon targeted the improvement of management capacities and this approach was

implicit in a number of other OPs

Approaches to support for innovation also took different forms Overall in the broader range

of OPs examined 24 of support was for RampD and a similar amount for business development

and direct support for RampD in collaborative and non-collaborative projects was a significant

feature of the OPs for Apulia Castile amp Leon Icircle-de-France Lithuania Poland and Saxony but

not in the Czech Republic and Denmark where FP7 was thought to be the appropriate vehicle

In Saxony strengthening the research base of enterprises in the local economy and promoting

the exploitation of knowledge was central to the OP so that the majority of the funds were

provided for investment in fixed capital and in supporting RampD This implied a certain targeting

within the SME population In Icircle-de-France the bulk of the support also went to research

projects and support for technology transfer and incubators though there was also support for

SME creation in distressed areas for access to finance and for social innovation projects In

Denmark the focus was more on promoting clusters and encouraging links between enterprises

and science institutions

In some cases however the picture was more mixed In Lithuania where 38 of funding went

to access to finance measures a further 30 to up-grading technology and processes but

there was also direct support for RampD and RampD infrastructure and support for networking and

clusters promoting innovation Similarly in Apulia there was support for research by SMEs

and measures to promote consulting services for technical innovation regional innovation

partnerships and aid for access to ICT alongside aid to investment in micro and small firms

and credit guarantees and support for tourism

Knowledge transfer also featured in many of the OPs Building relationships between

knowledge institutions and enterprises was an important objective for Denmark as part of

developing regional innovation capacities though the results were mixed at least in part

because of an unresponsive culture in certain universities In other cases these relationships

were promoted by collaborative research projects (Icircle-de-France Saxony) and in the case of

Lithuania by the use of vouchers Overall however it is perhaps surprising that building

relationships between knowledge institutions and enterprises did not have a higher profile

The development of clusters was an instrument used in the Czech Republic Lithuania and

Denmark where in some regions it absorbed a large proportion of the available funds and

where the focus was on emerging sectors such as clean technology energy health and welfare

and the experience economy Cluster support in this case consisted of a relatively complex set

of services provided for cluster members In the Czech Republic and Lithuania cluster

development was itself less developed and related to low-tech sectors with potential for

innovation and growth

Underlying these differences between Programmes there were variations in the approach to

governance This has become an important issue for all of the regions and countries

considered In part this is linked to the aspiration at least to establish transparent evidence-

based policy processes which has brought in the development of monitoring and evaluation

systems but there are more central elements of governance to do with who is involved in

decision-making and how decisions are taken that are also part of the picture The

development of stakeholder involvement in strategy formation in the setting of priorities and

even in elements of implementation was apparent in many of the cases throughout the

20

programming period In Denmark the whole (national and EU) strategy was based from the

beginning on a national consensus established through political and open public debates and

implemented through regional bodies with a strong stakeholder representation In Apulia a

self-evaluation exercise led to new departures in response to the crisis

There were however other issues of governance alluded to in the seminar relating to but the

alignment of the OP with national strategies and the organisational mechanisms adopted to

implement the strategy chosen by each OP These can have considerable influence on the

degree to which the Managing Authority can directly influence the implementation

mechanisms

Finally account must be taken of the differential impacts of the recession In Apulia and

Castile amp Leon there was formal reprogramming largely as a result of the recession and

changes in the instrument set utilised To a certain extent this meant a scaling down of

ambitions when for many enterprises it was a matter of survival rather than developing new

ventures Even here though the story does not always move in the same direction In the case

of Apulia for instance while it was necessary in part to refocus support on the broad range of

enterprises suffering from the recession at the same time the crisis acted as a stimulus to new

thinking after the conduct of a self-evaluation exercise

242 A common framework

Overall it can be seen that within the diversity shown by the eight cases there are at least a

number of common themes which are belong addressed in different ways The question does

arise however of whether it might be possible to go further to offer an explanation of the

diversity

External experts at the seminar advised that a theoretical framework should be sought to

make greater sense of the quantitative material and provide the basis for a more deliberative

judgement on the effectiveness of policy and how support funds can be best spent

One possibility is to take the differing circumstances of the OPs as themselves being an

explanatory factor and in a further step see the differences in the nature of the instruments

deployed as being part of an evolutionary process This approach also has the merit of linking

a debate on instruments with broader considerations in the promotion of innovation and

competitiveness at a European level

The reference in section 1 above to the position of the countries covered by the case studies

and their innovation performance as characterised by the Innovation Union Scoreboard and

in further detail at a regional level by the Regional Innovation Scoreboard 2012 allows a

distinction to be made between countries and regions in four categories - lsquoleadersrsquo lsquofollowersrsquo

those with a moderate lsquoperformancersquo and those lsquocatching-uprsquo The respective positions of the

eight cases have been set out in section 1

The approach suggested at the seminar was essentially to explore the hypothesis that the

overall lsquoinnovationrsquo position of regionscountries determines the types of instrument

used their targeting and ultimately their relative performance It may be that the

categorisation help us explain the differences in the objectives set the instruments that are

appropriate and their targeting and that this in turn also influences the performance that can

be expected Regionscountries for instance that are in the lsquoless developedrsquo categories may

have to strengthen their basic support infrastructure and service provision and the

performance of the enterprise base and that of other important players such as knowledge

institutions public authorities etc The regionscountries in the more lsquoadvancedrsquo positions on

the other hand have to build on their strengths in order to maintain or enhance their position

by promoting more productive research and strengthening the links between the science base

and enterprises

21

This possible framework provides an interesting line of enquiry to be followed up in further

stages of the evaluation It does however also address other issues raised in the seminar

such as whether support should be directed to high-tech enterprises or as was argued in

relation to a number of the countries present the gains to be had from the improvement of

the performance of mid and low-tech firms are more relevant in certain stages of

development

22

3 NEXT STEP THEORY-BASED IMPACT EVALUATIONS

As the implementation of the evaluation study proceeds and the case studies (Task 3) are

being drafted the Team is in the course of identifying three policy instruments to be assessed

by as many theory-based impact evaluations as foreseen in Task 4 The three instruments

should be selected out of the long list of seven instruments suggested in the First Intermediate

Report and in consultation with the European Commission

The Team puts forward hereby a possible list of three policy instruments The main criteria

considered for their selection are

i The degree of representativeness of the typologies of policy instruments used in the 50

OPs as outlined in the First Intermediate Report the most significant categories of

policy instruments in terms of public expenditure are

Business creation and development ie instruments designed to stimulate

investments in the business sector without a predominant emphasis on RampD

and innovation


Support for the development of technological and non-technological innovation

without any research and experimental development activities

ii The feasibility of a theory-based impact evaluation based on a survey of beneficiaries

which implies the availability of a sufficiently large number of beneficiaries and the

possibility to easily get their email contacts also with the help of the Managing

Authority or the implementing body the best option is to have at least some hundreds

beneficiary SMEs for each instrument

iii The importance of the policy instrument within the policy mix of the OP which ensures

the availability of a good amount of information resulting from the case study

regarding in particular its logic of intervention information about beneficiaries and

effectiveness

iv Preference is assigned to instruments on which no other surveys to beneficiaries have

been conducted so far in order not to put excessive burden on the same SMEs which

could undermine their willingness to contribute to our study

Based on these considerations the three policy instruments we propose for a theory-based

impact evaluation are presented in the table below It can be noticed that the list also ensures

geographical balance between Convergence and Competitiveness and Employment region as

well as Old and New Member States and regional and national OPs For the sake of

completeness and comparability for all the seven candidate instruments the pros and cons for

selecting each of them are detailed

23

Table 4 Comparison of the policy instruments and reasons for selection

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument

Operational Programme and

type of regioncountry

Descriptive information Specific reason for selection

for a TBIE Possible reasons for

rejection

YES Business creation and development

ldquoAid to investment projects by micro and small enterprisesrdquo

Regional OP Apulia (Italy) - Convergence region

- Old Member State

The instrument supports the purchase of machineries computer systems buildings construction works for enterprises in order to encourage the development of micro and small companies It benefitted more than 3 thousand SMEs For around 30 of beneficiaries grants have been combined with credit guarantees

- Very common type of SME support on which vast literature has been produced

- Very large number of beneficiary SMEs

- The strong relationship already established with local stakeholders and many SMEs would allow to easily and quickly test the surveyrsquos questionnaires before the launch of the three TBIEs

- For some SMEs opportunity to analyse the complimentary efforts of two forms of support (grants and a combination of grants and guarantees) and their respective effectiveness

- None

YES Support for RampD projects

ldquoGrants for Industrial Research and Experimental Developmentrdquo

Regional OP Castilla y Leon (Spain) - Competitiveness and Employment region

- Old Member State

The instrument encourages the development of RampD projects with the purpose of increasing the basis of number of innovative enterprises investment and personnel in RampD In total 759 projects of SMEs have been supported through grants 204 SMEs have conducted their project in collaboration with research organisations

- In analysing the achievement of beneficiary SMEs as well as the behavioural change opportunity to distinguish between SMEs which have realized their projects independently rather than in collaboration with a research centre

- According to the country expert among all the policy instruments of this OP this is the one for which it would be easier to get the contact details of beneficiary SMEs

- Possibility to get active collaboration by the regional authority ADE eg sending out an introductory letter to all

- None

24

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection

SMEs mentioning that they will receive an invitation to a survey and inviting them to reply

YES Support for the development of technological and non-technological innovation

ldquoFinancing of individual projects for SMEsrdquo

National OP Poland Innovative Economy - Convergence country

- New Member State

The instrument provides grants to support the technological innovation of SMEs In particular it aims to stimulate the adoption of more risky and innovative solutions The instrument performed far better than expected 698 projects have been realised up to 2013 by approximately as many SMEs The instrument is delivered by a financial intermediary

- This instrument belongs to the OP which has provided the largest financial contribution to SMEs within the full sample of 50 OPs furthermore this is one of the core instrument of the programme as also reflected in the volume of public contribution which is among the highest of the OP (more than EUR 300 million fully targeted to SMEs)

- Opportunity to examine the role played by the intermediary according to the perceptions and opinions of beneficiary SMEs

- None

NO Support for RampD projects

ldquoRampD project grants for individual enterprisesrdquo

Germany regional OP Saxony - Convergence region

- Old Member State

The instrument provides grants to individual enterprises for supporting the implementation of RampD projects

- Evidence of achievement is already available since the instrument was subject of another evaluation study and enterprise survey a few years ago The TBIE would allow to better qualify the instrumentsrsquo achievements and the causal chain leading to the certain effects

- According to the country experts beneficiary SMEs may be reluctant to participate to another survey

- Less than 200 beneficiary SMEs a lower number as compared with other candidate policy instruments

- It is still uncertain whether it will be possible to get the email addresses of beneficiary SMEs

25

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection

NO Support for the development of technological and non-technological innovation

ldquoSupport for technological upgrade - LEADER LTrdquo

Lithuania - Economic Growth - Convergence country

- New Member State

The instrument supports the increase of productivity in enterprises by supporting production technology upgrading The investment into the acquisition or upgrade of technologies and related internal engineering infrastructures are supported

- Email contacts particularly easy to be collected

- Result indicators are available due to an effective Structural Funds monitoring system and because the instrument was already subject of a previous evaluation study

- Very low number of beneficiary SMEs (69) which would make this instrument less suitable for launching an on-line survey as compared with other candidate instruments


ldquoSupport for non-technological innovation - PROCESS LTrdquo


- New Member State

The instrument aims to increase productivity in enterprises by implementing modern management methods and processes except of personnel management systems The purchase of external consulting services is supported in order to upgrade enterprises management processes



- The instrument is considered highly relevant by the target beneficiaries

- Very low number of beneficiary SMEs (119)

- As compared with other categories of policy instruments support for non-technological innovation is relatively less significant and representative of the typical forms of support provided to SMEs in the EU

NO Support for networking

ldquoInteraction on Innovationrdquo later merged with ldquoCluster relationshiprdquo

Denmark Innovation and Knowledge OP - Competitiveness and Employment country

- Old Member State

The policy instrument aims at analysing opportunities for creating clusters promoting networks and the formation of clusters of SMEs in particular as well as clusters of supplier networks for SMEs These objectives are pursued by providing grants to SMEs in partnership with universities (according to the triple helix model)

- Opportunity to better analyse the effects of a policy instrument on which a vast amount of literature has been produced

- Opportunity to dig into the collaboration mechanisms between SMEs and universities

- As compared with other categories of policy instruments support for networking is relatively less significant and representative of the typical forms of support provided to SMEs in the EU

- The number and characteristics of SMEs benefitting from this instrument remain unknown even after implementing the case

26

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection

study The lack of data at policy instrument level prevents from identifying the beneficiary SMEs to which launching the on-line survey

27

4 ANNEX SEMINAR PARTICIPANTS

Name Description Organisation

DG REGIO Evaluation Unit

Rudolf Niessler Director DG REGIO B Policy

Veronica Gaffey Head of Evaluation Unit DG REGIO B2

Marielle Richeacute Evaluation Unit DG REGIO B2

Kai Stryczynski Deputy Head of Unit DG REGIO B2

Daniel Mouqueacute Evaluation Unit DG REGIO B2

CSIL Evaluation Team

Massimo Florio Evaluation team Director CSIL

Julie Pellegrin Evaluation team Project Manager CSIL

Silvia Vignetti Evaluation team CSIL

Emanuela Sirtori Evaluation team CSIL

Mike Coyne Evaluation team CSES

Malin Carlberg Evaluation team CSES

Anna-Maria Krarup Evaluation team CSES

Christian Koehler Case Study Saxony Centre for European Economic Research (ZEW)

Jaime del Castillo Case Study Castile amp Leon President INFYDE

Agnė Paliokaitė Case Study Lithuania Visionary Analytics

Elena Jarocinska Case Study Poland

Commission Officials

Katja Reppel Deputy Head of Unit Competence Centre Smart and Sustainable Growth

DG REGIO G1

Bernd Reichert Head of Unit H2020 SME EASME

Peter Wragg Head of Unit SME Access to Markets DG GROW F2

Jean David Malo Head of Unit SMEs Financial Instruments amp State Aid DG RTD B3

28

Istvan Nemeth Policy Officer - Enterprise Europe Network DG GROW F2

External Experts

Harvey Armstrong Professor Emeritus in the Department of Geography University of Sheffield

Robert Picciotto Visiting Professor Kings College London

Mark Sanders Professor University of Utrecht

Jiri Blazek Associate Professor Charles University Prague

Stakeholders ndash Case Studies

Adriana Agrimi Manager of RampI Policy Instrument Apulia Managing Authority

Kasper Westh Senior official Growth Forum Secretariat South Denmark

Simona Daukilaite

Deputy Head of the Economic Growth Operational Programme

Economic Growth OP Lithuania Managing Authority

Beatriz Casado Saenz Vice-General Director ADE (Development Agency Castile amp Leon)

Tomasz Kula Analysis and Evaluation Team Competitiveness and Innovation Department

Ministry of Infrastructure and Development (PL)

Representatives of other Work Packages

Terry Ward WP 1 Applica

Andreas Resch WP 3 Metis-Vienna

Anda Berenyi WP 4 KPMG

LEGAL NOTICE

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information

contained therein

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (httpwwweuropaeu)

Luxembourg Publications Office of the European Union 2014

ISBN [number]

doi[number]

copy European Union 2015

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged

Printed in [Country]

PRINTED ON ELEMENTAL CHLORINE-FREE BLEACHED PAPER (ECF)

PRINTED ON TOTALLY CHLORINE-FREE BLEACHED PAPER (TCF) PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

PRINTED ON PROCESS CHLORINE-FREE RECYCLED PAPER (PCF)

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union

Freephone number ()

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

() The information given is free as are most calls (though some operators phone boxes or hotels may charge you)

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy Directorate B - Policy

Unit B2 Evaluation and European Semester

Contact Marielle Richeacute

E-mail REGIO-EVALeceuropaeu

European Commission

B-1049 Brussels

3



4






















5


TABLE OF CONTENTS


FOREWORD 7






24 Synthesis 17



6





CZ Czech Republic

DE Germany


DK Denmark



ES Spain

EU European Union

EUR Euro


FR France





IT Italy

LT Lithuania

M EUR Million Euro


MS Member State




NAT National



PL Poland



REG Regional


SF Structural Fund




WP Work package

7

FOREWORD











standing reports

8




























SME support

9



and knowledge

(2007DK162PO001)


(2007DE161PO004)


(2007FR162PO012)


(2007ES162PO009)

Italy ndash Apulia

(2007IT161PO010)


Growth

(2007LT161PO002)



(2007CZ161PO004)


Economy

(2007PL161PO001)

Source CSIL





into the picture















de-France

10


OP

Cohesion

Policy

objective

EU 12

(ldquoNewrdquo

Member

States) or

EU15 (ldquoOld

Member

States)

NUTS level

Volume of EU


themes (EUR

million)

of EU contribution

for WP2 themes over

total contrib for

the OP

Total

population

of the area

covered by

the OP

GDP (PPS)

per capita

(average

2007-2011)

(EUR)

Total

number of

SMEs ()

Total

intramural

expenditure

in RampD

(GERD) ndash

2007-2011

average

Business

expenditure

in RampD

(BERD) ndash

2007-2011

average



(in 2011)

075 of

GDP

017 of

GDP


de-France

Competitiveness

and Employment EU15

NUTS 2


727 thousand

(in 2011)

298 of

GDP

198 of

GDP

3 Germany -


NUTS 2


140 thousand

(in 2012)

277 of

GDP

131 of

GDP


knowledge


EU15 NUTS 0 country

203

82


(in 2013)

274 of

GDP

187 of

GDP


y Leoacuten

Competitiveness

and Employment EU15

NUTS 2


131 thousand

(in 2013)

109 of

GDP

061 of

GDP


Innovation

Convergence EU12

NUTS 0


region)


(in 2013)

112 of

GDP

078 of

GDP


Economy



2013)

066 of

GDP

020 of

GDP

8 Lithuania -

Economic

Growth



115 thousand

(in 2013)

085 of

GDP

024 of

GDP



11








Top 10 11-20 21-30 31-40 40-60







Slovakia

Spain Lithuania

Slovenia











Catching-up

Denmark

Icircle-de-France

Saxony


Czech Republic

Poland

Apulia

Lithuania














performance

12




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

CZ - CzechRepublic






Networking

















13


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

CZ - CzechRepublic

DE - Saxony

DK - Denmark



IT - Apulia

LT - Lithuania

PL - Poland




Grants









14





than 300 SMEs


00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000


CZ - CzechRepublic




















15


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100





available


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

CZ - CzechRepublic




Low tech

Medium-low tech

Medium-high tech

High tech






the case studies

16












































17










developments





24 Synthesis






























18


















































19


















































20









mechanisms













diversity


























and enterprises

21






development

22














and innovation












effectiveness










23


Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection




- Old Member State






- None




- Old Member State





- None

24

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection





- New Member State




- None




- Old Member State






25

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection




- New Member State








- New Member State










- Old Member State






26

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection


27























DG REGIO G1




28


External Experts








Simona Daukilaite










LEGAL NOTICE


contained therein



ISBN [number]

doi[number]








Freephone number ()

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11


3



4






















5


TABLE OF CONTENTS


FOREWORD 7






24 Synthesis 17



6





CZ Czech Republic

DE Germany


DK Denmark



ES Spain

EU European Union

EUR Euro


FR France





IT Italy

LT Lithuania

M EUR Million Euro


MS Member State




NAT National



PL Poland



REG Regional


SF Structural Fund




WP Work package

7

FOREWORD











standing reports

8




























SME support

9



and knowledge

(2007DK162PO001)


(2007DE161PO004)


(2007FR162PO012)


(2007ES162PO009)

Italy ndash Apulia

(2007IT161PO010)


Growth

(2007LT161PO002)



(2007CZ161PO004)


Economy

(2007PL161PO001)

Source CSIL





into the picture















de-France

10


OP

Cohesion

Policy

objective

EU 12

(ldquoNewrdquo

Member

States) or

EU15 (ldquoOld

Member

States)

NUTS level

Volume of EU


themes (EUR

million)

of EU contribution

for WP2 themes over

total contrib for

the OP

Total

population

of the area

covered by

the OP

GDP (PPS)

per capita

(average

2007-2011)

(EUR)

Total

number of

SMEs ()

Total

intramural

expenditure

in RampD

(GERD) ndash

2007-2011

average

Business

expenditure

in RampD

(BERD) ndash

2007-2011

average



(in 2011)

075 of

GDP

017 of

GDP


de-France

Competitiveness

and Employment EU15

NUTS 2


727 thousand

(in 2011)

298 of

GDP

198 of

GDP

3 Germany -


NUTS 2


140 thousand

(in 2012)

277 of

GDP

131 of

GDP


knowledge


EU15 NUTS 0 country

203

82


(in 2013)

274 of

GDP

187 of

GDP


y Leoacuten

Competitiveness

and Employment EU15

NUTS 2


131 thousand

(in 2013)

109 of

GDP

061 of

GDP


Innovation

Convergence EU12

NUTS 0


region)


(in 2013)

112 of

GDP

078 of

GDP


Economy



2013)

066 of

GDP

020 of

GDP

8 Lithuania -

Economic

Growth



115 thousand

(in 2013)

085 of

GDP

024 of

GDP



11








Top 10 11-20 21-30 31-40 40-60







Slovakia

Spain Lithuania

Slovenia











Catching-up

Denmark

Icircle-de-France

Saxony


Czech Republic

Poland

Apulia

Lithuania














performance

12




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

CZ - CzechRepublic






Networking

















13


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

CZ - CzechRepublic

DE - Saxony

DK - Denmark



IT - Apulia

LT - Lithuania

PL - Poland




Grants









14





than 300 SMEs


00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000


CZ - CzechRepublic




















15


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100





available


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

CZ - CzechRepublic




Low tech

Medium-low tech

Medium-high tech

High tech






the case studies

16












































17










developments





24 Synthesis






























18


















































19


















































20









mechanisms













diversity


























and enterprises

21






development

22














and innovation












effectiveness










23


Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection




- Old Member State






- None




- Old Member State





- None

24

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection





- New Member State




- None




- Old Member State






25

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection




- New Member State








- New Member State










- Old Member State






26

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection


27























DG REGIO G1




28


External Experts








Simona Daukilaite










LEGAL NOTICE


contained therein



ISBN [number]

doi[number]








Freephone number ()

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11


4






















5


TABLE OF CONTENTS


FOREWORD 7






24 Synthesis 17



6





CZ Czech Republic

DE Germany


DK Denmark



ES Spain

EU European Union

EUR Euro


FR France





IT Italy

LT Lithuania

M EUR Million Euro


MS Member State




NAT National



PL Poland



REG Regional


SF Structural Fund




WP Work package

7

FOREWORD











standing reports

8




























SME support

9



and knowledge

(2007DK162PO001)


(2007DE161PO004)


(2007FR162PO012)


(2007ES162PO009)

Italy ndash Apulia

(2007IT161PO010)


Growth

(2007LT161PO002)



(2007CZ161PO004)


Economy

(2007PL161PO001)

Source CSIL





into the picture















de-France

10


OP

Cohesion

Policy

objective

EU 12

(ldquoNewrdquo

Member

States) or

EU15 (ldquoOld

Member

States)

NUTS level

Volume of EU


themes (EUR

million)

of EU contribution

for WP2 themes over

total contrib for

the OP

Total

population

of the area

covered by

the OP

GDP (PPS)

per capita

(average

2007-2011)

(EUR)

Total

number of

SMEs ()

Total

intramural

expenditure

in RampD

(GERD) ndash

2007-2011

average

Business

expenditure

in RampD

(BERD) ndash

2007-2011

average



(in 2011)

075 of

GDP

017 of

GDP


de-France

Competitiveness

and Employment EU15

NUTS 2


727 thousand

(in 2011)

298 of

GDP

198 of

GDP

3 Germany -


NUTS 2


140 thousand

(in 2012)

277 of

GDP

131 of

GDP


knowledge


EU15 NUTS 0 country

203

82


(in 2013)

274 of

GDP

187 of

GDP


y Leoacuten

Competitiveness

and Employment EU15

NUTS 2


131 thousand

(in 2013)

109 of

GDP

061 of

GDP


Innovation

Convergence EU12

NUTS 0


region)


(in 2013)

112 of

GDP

078 of

GDP


Economy



2013)

066 of

GDP

020 of

GDP

8 Lithuania -

Economic

Growth



115 thousand

(in 2013)

085 of

GDP

024 of

GDP



11








Top 10 11-20 21-30 31-40 40-60







Slovakia

Spain Lithuania

Slovenia











Catching-up

Denmark

Icircle-de-France

Saxony


Czech Republic

Poland

Apulia

Lithuania














performance

12




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

CZ - CzechRepublic






Networking

















13


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

CZ - CzechRepublic

DE - Saxony

DK - Denmark



IT - Apulia

LT - Lithuania

PL - Poland




Grants









14





than 300 SMEs


00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000


CZ - CzechRepublic




















15


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100





available


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

CZ - CzechRepublic




Low tech

Medium-low tech

Medium-high tech

High tech






the case studies

16












































17










developments





24 Synthesis






























18


















































19


















































20









mechanisms













diversity


























and enterprises

21






development

22














and innovation












effectiveness










23


Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection




- Old Member State






- None




- Old Member State





- None

24

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection





- New Member State




- None




- Old Member State






25

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection




- New Member State








- New Member State










- Old Member State






26

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection


27























DG REGIO G1




28


External Experts








Simona Daukilaite










LEGAL NOTICE


contained therein



ISBN [number]

doi[number]








Freephone number ()

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11


5


TABLE OF CONTENTS


FOREWORD 7






24 Synthesis 17



6





CZ Czech Republic

DE Germany


DK Denmark



ES Spain

EU European Union

EUR Euro


FR France





IT Italy

LT Lithuania

M EUR Million Euro


MS Member State




NAT National



PL Poland



REG Regional


SF Structural Fund




WP Work package

7

FOREWORD











standing reports

8




























SME support

9



and knowledge

(2007DK162PO001)


(2007DE161PO004)


(2007FR162PO012)


(2007ES162PO009)

Italy ndash Apulia

(2007IT161PO010)


Growth

(2007LT161PO002)



(2007CZ161PO004)


Economy

(2007PL161PO001)

Source CSIL





into the picture















de-France

10


OP

Cohesion

Policy

objective

EU 12

(ldquoNewrdquo

Member

States) or

EU15 (ldquoOld

Member

States)

NUTS level

Volume of EU


themes (EUR

million)

of EU contribution

for WP2 themes over

total contrib for

the OP

Total

population

of the area

covered by

the OP

GDP (PPS)

per capita

(average

2007-2011)

(EUR)

Total

number of

SMEs ()

Total

intramural

expenditure

in RampD

(GERD) ndash

2007-2011

average

Business

expenditure

in RampD

(BERD) ndash

2007-2011

average



(in 2011)

075 of

GDP

017 of

GDP


de-France

Competitiveness

and Employment EU15

NUTS 2


727 thousand

(in 2011)

298 of

GDP

198 of

GDP

3 Germany -


NUTS 2


140 thousand

(in 2012)

277 of

GDP

131 of

GDP


knowledge


EU15 NUTS 0 country

203

82


(in 2013)

274 of

GDP

187 of

GDP


y Leoacuten

Competitiveness

and Employment EU15

NUTS 2


131 thousand

(in 2013)

109 of

GDP

061 of

GDP


Innovation

Convergence EU12

NUTS 0


region)


(in 2013)

112 of

GDP

078 of

GDP


Economy



2013)

066 of

GDP

020 of

GDP

8 Lithuania -

Economic

Growth



115 thousand

(in 2013)

085 of

GDP

024 of

GDP



11








Top 10 11-20 21-30 31-40 40-60







Slovakia

Spain Lithuania

Slovenia











Catching-up

Denmark

Icircle-de-France

Saxony


Czech Republic

Poland

Apulia

Lithuania














performance

12




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

CZ - CzechRepublic






Networking

















13


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

CZ - CzechRepublic

DE - Saxony

DK - Denmark



IT - Apulia

LT - Lithuania

PL - Poland




Grants









14





than 300 SMEs


00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000


CZ - CzechRepublic




















15


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100





available


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

CZ - CzechRepublic




Low tech

Medium-low tech

Medium-high tech

High tech






the case studies

16












































17










developments





24 Synthesis






























18


















































19


















































20









mechanisms













diversity


























and enterprises

21






development

22














and innovation












effectiveness










23


Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection




- Old Member State






- None




- Old Member State





- None

24

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection





- New Member State




- None




- Old Member State






25

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection




- New Member State








- New Member State










- Old Member State






26

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection


27























DG REGIO G1




28


External Experts








Simona Daukilaite










LEGAL NOTICE


contained therein



ISBN [number]

doi[number]








Freephone number ()

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11


6





CZ Czech Republic

DE Germany


DK Denmark



ES Spain

EU European Union

EUR Euro


FR France





IT Italy

LT Lithuania

M EUR Million Euro


MS Member State




NAT National



PL Poland



REG Regional


SF Structural Fund




WP Work package

7

FOREWORD











standing reports

8




























SME support

9



and knowledge

(2007DK162PO001)


(2007DE161PO004)


(2007FR162PO012)


(2007ES162PO009)

Italy ndash Apulia

(2007IT161PO010)


Growth

(2007LT161PO002)



(2007CZ161PO004)


Economy

(2007PL161PO001)

Source CSIL





into the picture















de-France

10


OP

Cohesion

Policy

objective

EU 12

(ldquoNewrdquo

Member

States) or

EU15 (ldquoOld

Member

States)

NUTS level

Volume of EU


themes (EUR

million)

of EU contribution

for WP2 themes over

total contrib for

the OP

Total

population

of the area

covered by

the OP

GDP (PPS)

per capita

(average

2007-2011)

(EUR)

Total

number of

SMEs ()

Total

intramural

expenditure

in RampD

(GERD) ndash

2007-2011

average

Business

expenditure

in RampD

(BERD) ndash

2007-2011

average



(in 2011)

075 of

GDP

017 of

GDP


de-France

Competitiveness

and Employment EU15

NUTS 2


727 thousand

(in 2011)

298 of

GDP

198 of

GDP

3 Germany -


NUTS 2


140 thousand

(in 2012)

277 of

GDP

131 of

GDP


knowledge


EU15 NUTS 0 country

203

82


(in 2013)

274 of

GDP

187 of

GDP


y Leoacuten

Competitiveness

and Employment EU15

NUTS 2


131 thousand

(in 2013)

109 of

GDP

061 of

GDP


Innovation

Convergence EU12

NUTS 0


region)


(in 2013)

112 of

GDP

078 of

GDP


Economy



2013)

066 of

GDP

020 of

GDP

8 Lithuania -

Economic

Growth



115 thousand

(in 2013)

085 of

GDP

024 of

GDP



11








Top 10 11-20 21-30 31-40 40-60







Slovakia

Spain Lithuania

Slovenia











Catching-up

Denmark

Icircle-de-France

Saxony


Czech Republic

Poland

Apulia

Lithuania














performance

12




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

CZ - CzechRepublic






Networking

















13


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

CZ - CzechRepublic

DE - Saxony

DK - Denmark



IT - Apulia

LT - Lithuania

PL - Poland




Grants









14





than 300 SMEs


00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000


CZ - CzechRepublic




















15


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100





available


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

CZ - CzechRepublic




Low tech

Medium-low tech

Medium-high tech

High tech






the case studies

16












































17










developments





24 Synthesis






























18


















































19


















































20









mechanisms













diversity


























and enterprises

21






development

22














and innovation












effectiveness










23


Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection




- Old Member State






- None




- Old Member State





- None

24

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection





- New Member State




- None




- Old Member State






25

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection




- New Member State








- New Member State










- Old Member State






26

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection


27























DG REGIO G1




28


External Experts








Simona Daukilaite










LEGAL NOTICE


contained therein



ISBN [number]

doi[number]








Freephone number ()

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11


7

FOREWORD











standing reports

8




























SME support

9



and knowledge

(2007DK162PO001)


(2007DE161PO004)


(2007FR162PO012)


(2007ES162PO009)

Italy ndash Apulia

(2007IT161PO010)


Growth

(2007LT161PO002)



(2007CZ161PO004)


Economy

(2007PL161PO001)

Source CSIL





into the picture















de-France

10


OP

Cohesion

Policy

objective

EU 12

(ldquoNewrdquo

Member

States) or

EU15 (ldquoOld

Member

States)

NUTS level

Volume of EU


themes (EUR

million)

of EU contribution

for WP2 themes over

total contrib for

the OP

Total

population

of the area

covered by

the OP

GDP (PPS)

per capita

(average

2007-2011)

(EUR)

Total

number of

SMEs ()

Total

intramural

expenditure

in RampD

(GERD) ndash

2007-2011

average

Business

expenditure

in RampD

(BERD) ndash

2007-2011

average



(in 2011)

075 of

GDP

017 of

GDP


de-France

Competitiveness

and Employment EU15

NUTS 2


727 thousand

(in 2011)

298 of

GDP

198 of

GDP

3 Germany -


NUTS 2


140 thousand

(in 2012)

277 of

GDP

131 of

GDP


knowledge


EU15 NUTS 0 country

203

82


(in 2013)

274 of

GDP

187 of

GDP


y Leoacuten

Competitiveness

and Employment EU15

NUTS 2


131 thousand

(in 2013)

109 of

GDP

061 of

GDP


Innovation

Convergence EU12

NUTS 0


region)


(in 2013)

112 of

GDP

078 of

GDP


Economy



2013)

066 of

GDP

020 of

GDP

8 Lithuania -

Economic

Growth



115 thousand

(in 2013)

085 of

GDP

024 of

GDP



11








Top 10 11-20 21-30 31-40 40-60







Slovakia

Spain Lithuania

Slovenia











Catching-up

Denmark

Icircle-de-France

Saxony


Czech Republic

Poland

Apulia

Lithuania














performance

12




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

CZ - CzechRepublic






Networking

















13


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

CZ - CzechRepublic

DE - Saxony

DK - Denmark



IT - Apulia

LT - Lithuania

PL - Poland




Grants









14





than 300 SMEs


00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000


CZ - CzechRepublic




















15


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100





available


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

CZ - CzechRepublic




Low tech

Medium-low tech

Medium-high tech

High tech






the case studies

16












































17










developments





24 Synthesis






























18


















































19


















































20









mechanisms













diversity


























and enterprises

21






development

22














and innovation












effectiveness










23


Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection




- Old Member State






- None




- Old Member State





- None

24

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection





- New Member State




- None




- Old Member State






25

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection




- New Member State








- New Member State










- Old Member State






26

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection


27























DG REGIO G1




28


External Experts








Simona Daukilaite










LEGAL NOTICE


contained therein



ISBN [number]

doi[number]








Freephone number ()

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11


8




























SME support

9



and knowledge

(2007DK162PO001)


(2007DE161PO004)


(2007FR162PO012)


(2007ES162PO009)

Italy ndash Apulia

(2007IT161PO010)


Growth

(2007LT161PO002)



(2007CZ161PO004)


Economy

(2007PL161PO001)

Source CSIL





into the picture















de-France

10


OP

Cohesion

Policy

objective

EU 12

(ldquoNewrdquo

Member

States) or

EU15 (ldquoOld

Member

States)

NUTS level

Volume of EU


themes (EUR

million)

of EU contribution

for WP2 themes over

total contrib for

the OP

Total

population

of the area

covered by

the OP

GDP (PPS)

per capita

(average

2007-2011)

(EUR)

Total

number of

SMEs ()

Total

intramural

expenditure

in RampD

(GERD) ndash

2007-2011

average

Business

expenditure

in RampD

(BERD) ndash

2007-2011

average



(in 2011)

075 of

GDP

017 of

GDP


de-France

Competitiveness

and Employment EU15

NUTS 2


727 thousand

(in 2011)

298 of

GDP

198 of

GDP

3 Germany -


NUTS 2


140 thousand

(in 2012)

277 of

GDP

131 of

GDP


knowledge


EU15 NUTS 0 country

203

82


(in 2013)

274 of

GDP

187 of

GDP


y Leoacuten

Competitiveness

and Employment EU15

NUTS 2


131 thousand

(in 2013)

109 of

GDP

061 of

GDP


Innovation

Convergence EU12

NUTS 0


region)


(in 2013)

112 of

GDP

078 of

GDP


Economy



2013)

066 of

GDP

020 of

GDP

8 Lithuania -

Economic

Growth



115 thousand

(in 2013)

085 of

GDP

024 of

GDP



11








Top 10 11-20 21-30 31-40 40-60







Slovakia

Spain Lithuania

Slovenia











Catching-up

Denmark

Icircle-de-France

Saxony


Czech Republic

Poland

Apulia

Lithuania














performance

12




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

CZ - CzechRepublic






Networking

















13


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

CZ - CzechRepublic

DE - Saxony

DK - Denmark



IT - Apulia

LT - Lithuania

PL - Poland




Grants









14





than 300 SMEs


00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000


CZ - CzechRepublic




















15


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100





available


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

CZ - CzechRepublic




Low tech

Medium-low tech

Medium-high tech

High tech






the case studies

16












































17










developments





24 Synthesis






























18


















































19


















































20









mechanisms













diversity


























and enterprises

21






development

22














and innovation












effectiveness










23


Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection




- Old Member State






- None




- Old Member State





- None

24

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection





- New Member State




- None




- Old Member State






25

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection




- New Member State








- New Member State










- Old Member State






26

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection


27























DG REGIO G1




28


External Experts








Simona Daukilaite










LEGAL NOTICE


contained therein



ISBN [number]

doi[number]








Freephone number ()

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11


9



and knowledge

(2007DK162PO001)


(2007DE161PO004)


(2007FR162PO012)


(2007ES162PO009)

Italy ndash Apulia

(2007IT161PO010)


Growth

(2007LT161PO002)



(2007CZ161PO004)


Economy

(2007PL161PO001)

Source CSIL





into the picture















de-France

10


OP

Cohesion

Policy

objective

EU 12

(ldquoNewrdquo

Member

States) or

EU15 (ldquoOld

Member

States)

NUTS level

Volume of EU


themes (EUR

million)

of EU contribution

for WP2 themes over

total contrib for

the OP

Total

population

of the area

covered by

the OP

GDP (PPS)

per capita

(average

2007-2011)

(EUR)

Total

number of

SMEs ()

Total

intramural

expenditure

in RampD

(GERD) ndash

2007-2011

average

Business

expenditure

in RampD

(BERD) ndash

2007-2011

average



(in 2011)

075 of

GDP

017 of

GDP


de-France

Competitiveness

and Employment EU15

NUTS 2


727 thousand

(in 2011)

298 of

GDP

198 of

GDP

3 Germany -


NUTS 2


140 thousand

(in 2012)

277 of

GDP

131 of

GDP


knowledge


EU15 NUTS 0 country

203

82


(in 2013)

274 of

GDP

187 of

GDP


y Leoacuten

Competitiveness

and Employment EU15

NUTS 2


131 thousand

(in 2013)

109 of

GDP

061 of

GDP


Innovation

Convergence EU12

NUTS 0


region)


(in 2013)

112 of

GDP

078 of

GDP


Economy



2013)

066 of

GDP

020 of

GDP

8 Lithuania -

Economic

Growth



115 thousand

(in 2013)

085 of

GDP

024 of

GDP



11








Top 10 11-20 21-30 31-40 40-60







Slovakia

Spain Lithuania

Slovenia











Catching-up

Denmark

Icircle-de-France

Saxony


Czech Republic

Poland

Apulia

Lithuania














performance

12




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

CZ - CzechRepublic






Networking

















13


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

CZ - CzechRepublic

DE - Saxony

DK - Denmark



IT - Apulia

LT - Lithuania

PL - Poland




Grants









14





than 300 SMEs


00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000


CZ - CzechRepublic




















15


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100





available


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

CZ - CzechRepublic




Low tech

Medium-low tech

Medium-high tech

High tech






the case studies

16












































17










developments





24 Synthesis






























18


















































19


















































20









mechanisms













diversity


























and enterprises

21






development

22














and innovation












effectiveness










23


Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection




- Old Member State






- None




- Old Member State





- None

24

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection





- New Member State




- None




- Old Member State






25

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection




- New Member State








- New Member State










- Old Member State






26

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection


27























DG REGIO G1




28


External Experts








Simona Daukilaite










LEGAL NOTICE


contained therein



ISBN [number]

doi[number]








Freephone number ()

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11


10


OP

Cohesion

Policy

objective

EU 12

(ldquoNewrdquo

Member

States) or

EU15 (ldquoOld

Member

States)

NUTS level

Volume of EU


themes (EUR

million)

of EU contribution

for WP2 themes over

total contrib for

the OP

Total

population

of the area

covered by

the OP

GDP (PPS)

per capita

(average

2007-2011)

(EUR)

Total

number of

SMEs ()

Total

intramural

expenditure

in RampD

(GERD) ndash

2007-2011

average

Business

expenditure

in RampD

(BERD) ndash

2007-2011

average



(in 2011)

075 of

GDP

017 of

GDP


de-France

Competitiveness

and Employment EU15

NUTS 2


727 thousand

(in 2011)

298 of

GDP

198 of

GDP

3 Germany -


NUTS 2


140 thousand

(in 2012)

277 of

GDP

131 of

GDP


knowledge


EU15 NUTS 0 country

203

82


(in 2013)

274 of

GDP

187 of

GDP


y Leoacuten

Competitiveness

and Employment EU15

NUTS 2


131 thousand

(in 2013)

109 of

GDP

061 of

GDP


Innovation

Convergence EU12

NUTS 0


region)


(in 2013)

112 of

GDP

078 of

GDP


Economy



2013)

066 of

GDP

020 of

GDP

8 Lithuania -

Economic

Growth



115 thousand

(in 2013)

085 of

GDP

024 of

GDP



11








Top 10 11-20 21-30 31-40 40-60







Slovakia

Spain Lithuania

Slovenia











Catching-up

Denmark

Icircle-de-France

Saxony


Czech Republic

Poland

Apulia

Lithuania














performance

12




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

CZ - CzechRepublic






Networking

















13


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

CZ - CzechRepublic

DE - Saxony

DK - Denmark



IT - Apulia

LT - Lithuania

PL - Poland




Grants









14





than 300 SMEs


00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000


CZ - CzechRepublic




















15


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100





available


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

CZ - CzechRepublic




Low tech

Medium-low tech

Medium-high tech

High tech






the case studies

16












































17










developments





24 Synthesis






























18


















































19


















































20









mechanisms













diversity


























and enterprises

21






development

22














and innovation












effectiveness










23


Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection




- Old Member State






- None




- Old Member State





- None

24

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection





- New Member State




- None




- Old Member State






25

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection




- New Member State








- New Member State










- Old Member State






26

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection


27























DG REGIO G1




28


External Experts








Simona Daukilaite










LEGAL NOTICE


contained therein



ISBN [number]

doi[number]








Freephone number ()

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11


11








Top 10 11-20 21-30 31-40 40-60







Slovakia

Spain Lithuania

Slovenia











Catching-up

Denmark

Icircle-de-France

Saxony


Czech Republic

Poland

Apulia

Lithuania














performance

12




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

CZ - CzechRepublic






Networking

















13


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

CZ - CzechRepublic

DE - Saxony

DK - Denmark



IT - Apulia

LT - Lithuania

PL - Poland




Grants









14





than 300 SMEs


00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000


CZ - CzechRepublic




















15


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100





available


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

CZ - CzechRepublic




Low tech

Medium-low tech

Medium-high tech

High tech






the case studies

16












































17










developments





24 Synthesis






























18


















































19


















































20









mechanisms













diversity


























and enterprises

21






development

22














and innovation












effectiveness










23


Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection




- Old Member State






- None




- Old Member State





- None

24

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection





- New Member State




- None




- Old Member State






25

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection




- New Member State








- New Member State










- Old Member State






26

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection


27























DG REGIO G1




28


External Experts








Simona Daukilaite










LEGAL NOTICE


contained therein



ISBN [number]

doi[number]








Freephone number ()

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11


12




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

CZ - CzechRepublic






Networking

















13


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

CZ - CzechRepublic

DE - Saxony

DK - Denmark



IT - Apulia

LT - Lithuania

PL - Poland




Grants









14





than 300 SMEs


00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000


CZ - CzechRepublic




















15


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100





available


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

CZ - CzechRepublic




Low tech

Medium-low tech

Medium-high tech

High tech






the case studies

16












































17










developments





24 Synthesis






























18


















































19


















































20









mechanisms













diversity


























and enterprises

21






development

22














and innovation












effectiveness










23


Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection




- Old Member State






- None




- Old Member State





- None

24

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection





- New Member State




- None




- Old Member State






25

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection




- New Member State








- New Member State










- Old Member State






26

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection


27























DG REGIO G1




28


External Experts








Simona Daukilaite










LEGAL NOTICE


contained therein



ISBN [number]

doi[number]








Freephone number ()

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11


13


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

CZ - CzechRepublic

DE - Saxony

DK - Denmark



IT - Apulia

LT - Lithuania

PL - Poland




Grants









14





than 300 SMEs


00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000


CZ - CzechRepublic




















15


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100





available


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

CZ - CzechRepublic




Low tech

Medium-low tech

Medium-high tech

High tech






the case studies

16












































17










developments





24 Synthesis






























18


















































19


















































20









mechanisms













diversity


























and enterprises

21






development

22














and innovation












effectiveness










23


Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection




- Old Member State






- None




- Old Member State





- None

24

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection





- New Member State




- None




- Old Member State






25

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection




- New Member State








- New Member State










- Old Member State






26

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection


27























DG REGIO G1




28


External Experts








Simona Daukilaite










LEGAL NOTICE


contained therein



ISBN [number]

doi[number]








Freephone number ()

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11


14





than 300 SMEs


00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000


CZ - CzechRepublic




















15


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100





available


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

CZ - CzechRepublic




Low tech

Medium-low tech

Medium-high tech

High tech






the case studies

16












































17










developments





24 Synthesis






























18


















































19


















































20









mechanisms













diversity


























and enterprises

21






development

22














and innovation












effectiveness










23


Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection




- Old Member State






- None




- Old Member State





- None

24

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection





- New Member State




- None




- Old Member State






25

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection




- New Member State








- New Member State










- Old Member State






26

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection


27























DG REGIO G1




28


External Experts








Simona Daukilaite










LEGAL NOTICE


contained therein



ISBN [number]

doi[number]








Freephone number ()

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11


15


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100





available


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

CZ - CzechRepublic




Low tech

Medium-low tech

Medium-high tech

High tech






the case studies

16












































17










developments





24 Synthesis






























18


















































19


















































20









mechanisms













diversity


























and enterprises

21






development

22














and innovation












effectiveness










23


Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection




- Old Member State






- None




- Old Member State





- None

24

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection





- New Member State




- None




- Old Member State






25

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection




- New Member State








- New Member State










- Old Member State






26

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection


27























DG REGIO G1




28


External Experts








Simona Daukilaite










LEGAL NOTICE


contained therein



ISBN [number]

doi[number]








Freephone number ()

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11


16












































17










developments





24 Synthesis






























18


















































19


















































20









mechanisms













diversity


























and enterprises

21






development

22














and innovation












effectiveness










23


Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection




- Old Member State






- None




- Old Member State





- None

24

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection





- New Member State




- None




- Old Member State






25

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection




- New Member State








- New Member State










- Old Member State






26

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection


27























DG REGIO G1




28


External Experts








Simona Daukilaite










LEGAL NOTICE


contained therein



ISBN [number]

doi[number]








Freephone number ()

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11


17










developments





24 Synthesis






























18


















































19


















































20









mechanisms













diversity


























and enterprises

21






development

22














and innovation












effectiveness










23


Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection




- Old Member State






- None




- Old Member State





- None

24

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection





- New Member State




- None




- Old Member State






25

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection




- New Member State








- New Member State










- Old Member State






26

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection


27























DG REGIO G1




28


External Experts








Simona Daukilaite










LEGAL NOTICE


contained therein



ISBN [number]

doi[number]








Freephone number ()

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11


18


















































19


















































20









mechanisms













diversity


























and enterprises

21






development

22














and innovation












effectiveness










23


Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection




- Old Member State






- None




- Old Member State





- None

24

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection





- New Member State




- None




- Old Member State






25

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection




- New Member State








- New Member State










- Old Member State






26

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection


27























DG REGIO G1




28


External Experts








Simona Daukilaite










LEGAL NOTICE


contained therein



ISBN [number]

doi[number]








Freephone number ()

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11


19


















































20









mechanisms













diversity


























and enterprises

21






development

22














and innovation












effectiveness










23


Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection




- Old Member State






- None




- Old Member State





- None

24

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection





- New Member State




- None




- Old Member State






25

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection




- New Member State








- New Member State










- Old Member State






26

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection


27























DG REGIO G1




28


External Experts








Simona Daukilaite










LEGAL NOTICE


contained therein



ISBN [number]

doi[number]








Freephone number ()

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11


20









mechanisms













diversity


























and enterprises

21






development

22














and innovation












effectiveness










23


Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection




- Old Member State






- None




- Old Member State





- None

24

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection





- New Member State




- None




- Old Member State






25

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection




- New Member State








- New Member State










- Old Member State






26

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection


27























DG REGIO G1




28


External Experts








Simona Daukilaite










LEGAL NOTICE


contained therein



ISBN [number]

doi[number]








Freephone number ()

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11


21






development

22














and innovation












effectiveness










23


Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection




- Old Member State






- None




- Old Member State





- None

24

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection





- New Member State




- None




- Old Member State






25

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection




- New Member State








- New Member State










- Old Member State






26

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection


27























DG REGIO G1




28


External Experts








Simona Daukilaite










LEGAL NOTICE


contained therein



ISBN [number]

doi[number]








Freephone number ()

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11


22














and innovation












effectiveness










23


Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection




- Old Member State






- None




- Old Member State





- None

24

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection





- New Member State




- None




- Old Member State






25

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection




- New Member State








- New Member State










- Old Member State






26

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection


27























DG REGIO G1




28


External Experts








Simona Daukilaite










LEGAL NOTICE


contained therein



ISBN [number]

doi[number]








Freephone number ()

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11


23


Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection




- Old Member State






- None




- Old Member State





- None

24

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection





- New Member State




- None




- Old Member State






25

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection




- New Member State








- New Member State










- Old Member State






26

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection


27























DG REGIO G1




28


External Experts








Simona Daukilaite










LEGAL NOTICE


contained therein



ISBN [number]

doi[number]








Freephone number ()

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11


24

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection





- New Member State




- None




- Old Member State






25

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection




- New Member State








- New Member State










- Old Member State






26

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection


27























DG REGIO G1




28


External Experts








Simona Daukilaite










LEGAL NOTICE


contained therein



ISBN [number]

doi[number]








Freephone number ()

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11


25

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection




- New Member State








- New Member State










- Old Member State






26

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection


27























DG REGIO G1




28


External Experts








Simona Daukilaite










LEGAL NOTICE


contained therein



ISBN [number]

doi[number]








Freephone number ()

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11


26

Proposed for

selection

Type of policy

instrument

Selected policy

instrument





rejection


27























DG REGIO G1




28


External Experts








Simona Daukilaite










LEGAL NOTICE


contained therein



ISBN [number]

doi[number]








Freephone number ()

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11


27























DG REGIO G1




28


External Experts








Simona Daukilaite










LEGAL NOTICE


contained therein



ISBN [number]

doi[number]








Freephone number ()

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11


28


External Experts








Simona Daukilaite










LEGAL NOTICE


contained therein



ISBN [number]

doi[number]








Freephone number ()

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11


LEGAL NOTICE


contained therein



ISBN [number]

doi[number]








Freephone number ()

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11


support to smes increasing research and innovation in smes ...€¦ · comp competitiveness and...

Documents