venture lab twente eu innovation 2012
TRANSCRIPT
The EU Innovation PolicyThe EU Innovation PolicyAmbitions and Realities Ambitions and Realities
Frans van Vught
VentureLab Twente Venture ClassEnschede, 16 February 2012
Overview
Globalisation Innovation and Innovation Policies The EU ‘Lisbon Agenda’ (2010) Ambitions and Realities The ‘Europe 2020 Strategy’ (2020) Issues and Actions
Globalisation
• Economic: process of increasing economic openness, growing economic interdepence and deepening economic integration in the world economy
• Political: process of institutionalisation of international consultation and
decision- making, and of relative reduction of the power of national governments
• Socio-cultural:process of global cultural exchange and integration and of potential weakening of
traditional social norms and institutions
Globalisation and ‘Geo-Regionalisation’
Source: UNCTAD, Handbook of Statistics, 2011Source: UNCTAD, Handbook of Statistics, 2011
1990 1995 2000 2005 2008 2009 2010
Total % internal
Total % internal
Total % internal
Total % internal
Total % internal
Total % internal
Total % internal
ECOWAS 23 7 22 9 36 8 72 8 107 9 72 10 85 11
SADC 35 3 46 11 52 9 102 8 191 10 137 9 170 11
MERCOSUR 46 9 70 20 85 21 164 13 278 15 217 15 281 16
NAFTA 562 40 854 46 1.224 55 1.479 56 2.046 50 1.601 48 1961 49
ASEAN 145 19 321 25 427 23 654 25 985 29 811 25 1051 25
ASEAN+3 560 13 1.048 13 1.333 13 2.294 14 3.640 14 2.955 14 3630 16
EU27 1.547 67 2.142 66 2.380 67 4.030 67 5.909 75 4.566 67 5134 66
Globalisation and innovation
Globalisation triggers national innovation policies
National innovation policies focus increasingly on stimulating the creation, transfer and application of knowledge
National innovation policies are influenced by the “National Innovation System” (NIS) perspective
The perspective of National Innovation Systems(NIS)
Emerged during 1980s as a new approach to the economics of innovation
Emphasizes interactions between scientific knowledge and new products and services
Takes an explicit policy orientation Identifies academic institutions as playing a critical role Distinguishes two crucial outputs of these institutions:
research outputs (publications, patents) highly skilled human capital
Focuses on linkages between actors in innovation processes: hard linkages (science parks, incubators) soft linkages (internships, conferences)
Addresses institutional framework conditions of innovation processes (regulations, incentives)
International comparative study of national innovation policies
Australia, Canada, Europe (EU and several Member States), Japan, US (Federal and several States)
David D. Dill & Frans A. van Vught (eds). “National Innovation and the Academic Research Enterprise: Public Policy in Global Perspective” , Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010
National Innovation Policy Strategies
Clearly influenced by the NIS perspective
Relate policy instruments to policy objectives regarding innovation
Consist of some combination of the basic notions of market coordination and central planning
Two large categories:
prioritisation strategies competition strategies
Prioritization strategies
Reflects notions of central planning Characteristics like: foresight analyses, priority
allocation, concentration of resources, quality assessment of outputs
Examples: Australia’s research priority setting Canada’s centers of excellence Finland’s TEKES agency UK’s foresight assessments and RAEs Netherlands’ innovation priority areas
Competition Strategies
Reflects notion of market coordination Characteristics like: competitive allocation of resources,
encouraging entrepreneurial academic behaviour,deregulation, diversifying funding base
Examples: US federal science policy Japan’s competitive grants scheme for doctoral
training Canada’s competitive research matching funding Germany’s excellence policy UK’s competitive ‘third sector’ funding
EU Innovation Strategy
Example of prioritisation strategy
But with elements of competition strategy
20 Years of EU innovation policy:
The ‘Lisbon Agenda’ (2000 – 2010): ‘to become the most competitive knowledge economy in the world’
The ‘Europe 2020 Strategy’ (2010 – 2020): ‘to build the European Innovation Union’
The Lisbon Agenda on Innovation
ResearchPolicy
ResearchPolicy
HigherEducation
Policy
HigherEducation
Policy
Knowl.Transferpolicy
Knowl.Transferpolicy
CPFCPF
Structural FundsStructural FundsERCERC
EITEIT
Cohesion Policy Funds:
• European Regional Development Fund
• European Social Fund
• European Cohesion Fund
Cohesion Policy Funds:
• European Regional Development Fund
• European Social Fund
• European Cohesion Fund
‘Lisbon Agenda’: Research policy
Fully developed since 1980’s Framework Programmes: medium term planning instrument But only 5% of the total EU research investments European Research Area (ERA):
Launched in 2000 Barcelona target: 3% GDP FP7: Technology Platforms; Joint Technology Initiatives;
European Research Council; joint programming. Six ERA Features:
Adequate flow of mobile researchers World-class research infrastructures Excellent research institutions Effective knowledge-sharing Well-coordinated research programmes Opening up to the world
‘Lisbon Agenda’: Higher Education policy Taboo until 2000 First programmes: Erasmus (mobility), Socrates I&II (cooperation) Alignment with Bologna Process (1999) Lifelong Learning programme (2007-2013) Hampton court target: 2% GDP Major Bottlenecks:
Tendency to uniformity and egalitarianism Too much emphasis on traditional monodisciplinarity Too little world-class excellence Too much emphasis on traditional learning and learners Too little transparency Too much fragmentation Too insulated from industry Over-regulated; state dependent; underfunded
Modernisation agenda (since 2005) Mobility Governance (Regional) innovation Internationalisation (Erasmus Mundus) Higher education – Business fora European Institute of Technology (EIT) and Knowledge & Innovation
Communities (KICS)
‘Lisbon Agenda’: Knowledge Exchange policy
Only addressed since late 1990’s Focus on decreasing barriers:
cultural differences between academic and business communities legal barriers fragmented markets lack of incentives
Facilitate creation and marketing of new products and services (the ‘lead markets’)
Competitiveness and Innovation Programme (CIP, 2007-2013) Several measures:
Workforce of skilled knowledge transfer staff Entrepreneurial mindset in universities Staff exchanges between research organisations and industry Voluntary guidelines to improve intellectual property management Innovation Relay Centers, Network of Innovating Regions. IPR
helpdesk, on –line information SMEs
The Lisbon Agenda: ambitions and realities R&D expenditure as % GDP (2008)
R & D intensity
Business expenditure
Public expenditure
EU 2.01 1.27 0.74
US 2.77 2.12 0.65
Japan 3.44 2.75 0.69
S.Korea 3.21 2.59 0.78
China 1.54 1.12 0.41
Source: Innovation Union Competitiveness report, 2011, European Commission
The Lisbon Agenda: ambitions and realities
Total expenditure
Public expenditure
Private expenditure
EU 1.2 1.12 0.08
US 2.6 1.25 1.35
Japan 1.3 0.63 0.67
Expenditure on higher education as % GDP (2007)
Source: Innovation Union Competitiveness report, 2011, European Commission
The Lisbon Agenda: ambitions and realities
% researchers in business & industry (2008)
Source: Innovation Union Competitiveness report, 2011, European Commission
EU 54
US 80
Japan 73
S. Korea 69
Source: Innovation Union Competitivess report, 2011, European Commission
The Lisbon Agenda: ambitions and realities
2000 2009
EU 37.7 33.4
US 31.8 25.9
China 6.4 18.5
Japan 9.4 6.3
S. Korea 1.7 2.8
Brasil 1.4 2.3
Russia 3.1 2.0
Israel 1.1 0.9
World shares of scientific peer-reviewed publications
The Lisbon Agenda: ambitions and realities
% of scientific publications within 10% most cited scientific publications worldwide as % of total number of scientific publications of the country (2001-2007)
US 15.3
EU 11.6
S. Korea 8.5
Japan 8.3
China 7.0
Source: Innovation Union Competitivess report, 2011, European Commission
Shanghai ARWU university ranking, 2011Top 100
US 53
EU 28
United Kingdom 10
Germany 6
Japan 5
Australia 4
Switzerland 4
France 3
Sweden 3
Denmark 2
Netherlands 2
Belgium 1
Finland 1
Israel 1
Norway 1
Russia 1
Top 500EU 190
US 151
Germany 39
United Kingdom 37
China 35
Japan 23
Canada 22
Italy 22
France 21
Australia 19
Netherlands 13
S. Korea 11
Spain 11
Sweden 11
Austria 7
Belgium 7
Brasil 7
Israel 7
Switzerland 7
Finland 5
New Zealand 5
The Lisbon Agenda: ambitions and realities
Number of public-private scientific co-publications per million population (2008)
Source: Innovation Union Competitiveness report, 2011, European Commission
US 70.2
Japan 56.3
EU 36.2
China 1.2
The Lisbon Agenda: ambitions and realities
Number of patent applications per billion GDP (2007)
(as defined under Patent Cooperation Treaty)
Japan 8.3
S. Korea 7.0
US 4.3
EU 4.0
China 1.1
Source: Innovation Union Competitiveness report, 2011, European Commission
The Lisbon Agenda: ambitions and realities
Number of patent applications with at least one foreign co-inventor as % of total number of patent applications (2001-2008)
China 11.7
US 11.2
EU 10.7
S. Korea 4.2
Japan 2.7
Source: Innovation Union Competitiveness report, 2011, European Commission
EU’s innovation performance in aglobalizing world, 2006-2010
Composite score on 12 innovation indicators, EU=100
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
US 146 145 146 148 149
Japan 132 136 140 139 140
EU 100 100 100 100 100
Russia 69 65 63 63 63
India 48 49 48 48 47
China 39 40 41 43 45
Brasil 39 40 40 42 42
Source: Innovation Union Scoreboard, 2010, European Commission
EU’s innovation performance compared to six other countries, 2006-2010, EU=0
Innovation performance indicator US JapanRussi
aIndia China Brasil
New doctorate graduates per 1000 population aged 25-37 + - + n.a. n.a. --
% population aged 24-64 having completed tertiary education ++ ++ ++ -- -- --
International scientific co-publications per million people + - n.a. n.a. -- n.a.
Scientific publications among the top 10% most cited publications as % of total publications of the country
+ - -- - - --
Public R&D expenditures as % GDP - - - -- - -
Business R&D expenditures as % GDP ++ ++ - -- - --
Public-private co-publications per million population ++ ++ -- -- -- --
PCT patent applications per billion GDP (in PPS €) + ++ -- -- -- --
PCT patent applications in societal challenges per billion GDP (in PPS €)
+ + -- -- -- --
Medium and high-tech products exports as % total product exports
+ + + + + +
Knowledge-intensive services exports as % total service exports - - - ++ - +
License and patent revenues from abroad as % GDP ++ ++ -- -- -- --
Source: Innovation Union Scoreboard, 2010, European Commission
EU’s innovation performance compared to six countries
EU’s weaknesses in innovation
Severe (private) underinvestment in research and
education
Relatively low higher education attainment and
participation levels
Limited scientific and technological excellence
Weak knowledge exchange between academia and
industry
Poor framework conditions in terms of access to
financing costs of patenting, and enhancement of
entrepreneurship
Diversity of innovation performance among EU-member states
Innovation leaders Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Germany
Innovation followersUK, Belgium, Austria, Netherlands, Ireland, Luxemburg, France, Cyprus, Slovenia, Estonia
Moderate innovatorsPortugal, Italy, Czech Rep., Spain, Greece, Malta, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia
Modest innovators Romania, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Latvia
• 11 countries above EU average• Switzerland would be overall innovation leader
The Europe 2020 Strategy on innovation
Close EU’s innovation gap
Integrate research and innovation, and
focus on societal challenges
Create more knowledge-intensive products
and services
The Europe 2020 Strategy on innovation
Issues and Actions in Research:
Costly fragmentation and overlap between national research systems
Need for a unified European Research Area where actors move and operate easily
Simplification of complex funding landscape Urgent need for world-class infrastructures
EC proposal for to remove obstacles to mobility and cross-border cooperation in research by 2014
EU and Member States to complete 60% of priority European research infrastructures by 2015
International agreements on world-level infrastructures Streamlining and simplification of research programmes.
The Europe 2020 Strategy on innovationIssues and Actions in Higher Education:
• Universities to diversify and specialise• Need to create limited number of world-class European universities• Attract international top talent• EU needs at least one million more researchers• More people to enroll in higher education• Educational training should better match business needs
• Percentage 30 – 34 year old with tertiary education to 40% in 2020• National strategies to boost training and career of researchers• Mobility to be diversified• New multidimensional ranking instrument• Modernisation of governance and management in universities• More entrepreneurial universities• University-Business alliances
The Europe 2020 Strategy on innovation
Issues and Actions in Knowledge Transfer:
• Need to support whole innovation chain, from research to market
• Address lack of finance as major constraint • Few European SMEs grow into global companies• Much IPR remains dormant• EU patent system is costly• Public procurement hardly used for innovation
• Rapid agreement on EU patent needed• New generation of financial instruments with EIB• Regime of cross border venture capital funds• Strategic innovation agenda of EIT• Member States to use procurement budgets for innovation
The Europe 2020 Strategy on innovation
Research policy
ERCERC
Structural FundsStructural Funds
CPFCPF
KnowledgeTransfer policy
KnowledgeTransfer policyEITEIT
Research and Innovation Policy Framework Cohesion Framework
Higher Education policy
Two complimentary general policy frameworks
Synergies between Innovation policies and
Cohesion policies
Further integration of research and innovation
policies
Combining global and regional innovation ambitions
(global-local connectedness)
Multi-excellence approach
Combining and integrating policies of EU and
Member States
EU 2020 Strategy on Innovation
The Europe of Knowledge
• Context of global competition: addressing the gap
• Prioritization strategy: societal challenges
• Policy integration: synergies & better framework conditions
• Multi-level cooperation: EU, member states, regions
• Multi-actor investments: governments, industry, households,
individuals
• Performance assessment: multiple excellences
• And a major political challenge!