measuring national systems of innovation – the „innovation...
Post on 09-Oct-2020
4 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Measuring National Systems of Innovation –The „Innovation Indicator“ECFIN „Building a Systemic Approach“
Brussels, 20 Nov. 2009
Prof. Dr. Christian von HirschhausenDIW Berlin / TU Berlin
and Team IDE
• Composite Indicators• The „Innovation Indicator Germany“• Results 2009 and Comparisons• Conclusions
3
What is a Composite Indicator?
Composite indicators are based on sub-indicators with a
standardized unit of measurement, and are based upon a
subjective way of weighting these sub-indicators.• Composite indicators, which compare country performance, are
increasingly used as a tool in policy analysis.• CI´s provide simple comparisons of countries that can be used to
illustrate complex and sometimes elusive issues in wide-ranging fields, e.g., environment or economy
4
Pros and Cons of Composite Indicators
• Used to summarise complex or multi-dimensional issues • Can help attracting public interest by providing a summary figure with which to compare the performance across Countries and their progress over time• Could help to reduce the size of a list of indicators or to include more information within the existing size limit• Are easier to interpret than a battery of many separate indicators• Enable users to compare complex dimensions effectively
Pros
• May send misleading, non-robust policy messages if they are poorly constructed or misinterpreted
• There could be more scope for Member States about composite indicators than on individual indicators. The selection of sub-indicators and weights could be the target of political challenge• The composite indicators increase the quantity of data needed because data are required for all the sub-indicators and for a statistically significant analysis
Cons
5
Construction of Composite Indicators• Theoretical framework: provides the basis for the selection and
combination of single indicators • Data selection: on the basis of analytical soundness, measurability,
country coverage, relevance to the phenomenon being measured andrelationship to each
• Imputation of missing data: is needed in order to provide a complete dataset
• Multivariate analysis: should investigate the overall structure of the indicators and explain the methodological choices, e.g. weighting and aggregation
• Normalization: to render the indicators comparable• Weighting and aggregation: should be done according to the
underlying framework• Robustness and sensitivity: should be undertaken to assess the
robustness of the composite indicator• Presentation and Visualisation: the way of presenting can influence
the interpretation
6
Quality of a Composite Indicator
The quality of a composite indicator as well as the soundness of themessage depends primarily on the quality of the framework and the dataused.
The „key“ to any useful application of indicators is transparency, and a scientifically sound, objective approach
Relative results and „information „ are more important than concreteresults and positions
Disputable policy messages can be the result of a composite indicatorwhich is based on a weak theoretical background or a dataset containinglarge measurement errors
7
Examples of Composite Indicators• There are currently more than 300 composite indicators developed by
international organizations• Classification of composite indicators (thematic categories):
• Environment• Society• Economy• Innovation/ Technology/ Information/ Knowledge/ Education• Globalization
• Innovation: Innovation Indicator Germany (DIW Berlin)Summary Innovation Index (European Commission)Benchmarking EU & U.S. – Innovation and Competitiveness (iTIF)Technology Achievement Index (United Nations)Innovative Capacity Index (Porter and Stern)
Comparison of the ranks of different Innovation Composite Indicators
8
• Composite Indicators• The „Innovation Indicator Germany“• Results 2009 and Comparisons• Conclusions
Frühe Bildung Weiterführende Schule Hochschule Innovation
Commission
The DIW Berlin constructed an overall indicatorof innovative capacity on commission of Deutsche Telekom Stiftung and Bundesverband der deutschen Industrie.Creation of a composite Indicator of Germany´sNational innovative capacity:
in an international perspectivewith comprehensible and popular presentable resultsand contemporary inclusion of new research findings.
Frühe Bildung Weiterführende Schule Hochschule Innovation
Innovative ability is ...
1.00
1.38
3.87
4.14
36
4.56
4.90
5.00
5.18
5.38
5.64
6.00
6.65
6.81
6.92
7.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
17 ITA16 ESP
14 AUT13 BEL12 IRL11 FRA10 CAN9 NLD8 DEU7 GBR6 JPN5 DNK4 FIN3 CHE2 USA1 SWE
…the ability of a country, the people and companies,
to create new knowledge and implement
this innew, marketable products, processes and services.
…the ability of a country, the people and companies,
to create new knowledge and implement
this innew, marketable products, processes and services.
Frühe Bildung Weiterführende Schule Hochschule Innovation
Construction plan of the innovation indicator for Germany
Individualindicators
Societal Climatefor Innovation
Attitude towardsscience and technology
Social capital
Changingculture
Innovation System
Innovation Indicator Germany
Sub indicators
Intermediatestages
Implementation Competition
Demand
Networking
Education FinancingR&D
180 individual indicators
Frühe Bildung Weiterführende Schule Hochschule Innovation
Measurement of relative innovation abbility of Germany in an international context
Analysis is conducted for 17 of the mostindustrialized countries, with a focus on the triadof Europe, North America and Asia.
12 european countries: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Finland, France, Great Britain, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden, Ireland and Switzerland
North Amerika: USA, Canada
Asia: Japan, South Korea.
Frühe Bildung Weiterführende Schule Hochschule Innovation
Wide data range: 180 individual indicators from different sources
„hard“ statistical OECD-indicators (e.g. MSTI)
“soft” indicators: Survey Data of World Economic Forum
Surveys of individuals according to their attitude (World Values Study, Eurobarometer)
Indicators calculated by the DIW Berlin according to foundation , regulation or awareness of corruption (DIW)
Managersurvey of DIW and BDI
Assumption is always: “More, resp. higher values are better”
Frühe Bildung Weiterführende Schule Hochschule Innovation
Method of Indicator formation: Bottom-Up
( )6 1U S A m in
U S A ,S corem ax m in
B 1 B 1B 1
(B 1 B 1 )−
= × +−
„Front-runner“
„last in the lot“Original value
„last in the lot“
1. Step: Standardization of indiviadual indicators (Maximum 7 – Minimum 1)
2. Step: principal component analysis: summary of the standardizedindividual indicators B1 ...BN (for the first six stages)
1 21 Score ScoreHK B1 B2a a= × + × +K• empirical weighting
• „rewards“ (Co-)variation
• emphazises differences
Frühe Bildung Weiterführende Schule Hochschule Innovation
Innovation System
Implementation Competition
Demand
Networking
Education FinancingR&D
Weighting from DIW-BDI Manager survey 2005/2006
21 %
14 %
18 % 3 % 19 %
13 % 11 %
Innovation Indicator Germany7/8 1/8
Societal Climatefor Innovation
Attitude towardsscience and technology
Social capital
Changing culture
1/3
1/3
1/3
3. Step: last two stages of integrating and combining
Frühe Bildung Weiterführende Schule Hochschule Innovation
Societal Climatefor Innovation
attitude towardsscience and technology
social capital
changing culture
Societal Climate for Innovation
basic attiitude of openness and tolerance
attiitude of womens participation
science and society
attitude of entrepreneurical risk
interests in science and technology
Confidence in innovation actors usage and persepectives in scienceand technology
social capital
• Composite Indicators• The „Innovation Indicator Germany“• Results 2009 and Comparisons• Conclusions
Frühe Bildung Weiterführende Schule Hochschule Innovation
Overall Indicator 2009- Ranks and Scores of the17 countriesGermany holds rank 9
Frühe Bildung Weiterführende Schule Hochschule Innovation
Impl
emen
tatio
n
Dem
and
Net
wor
king
R&
D
Edu
catio
n
Fina
ncin
g
Com
petit
ion
Cha
ngin
gcu
lture
Atti
tude
tow
ards
scie
nce
and
tech
nolo
gy
Soc
ialc
apita
l
Overall indicator
Societal Climatefor InnovationInnovation System
123456789
1011121314151617
123456789
1011121314151617
Germany 2009
Frühe Bildung Weiterführende Schule Hochschule Innovation
Impl
emen
tatio
n
Dem
and
Net
wor
king
R&
D
Edu
catio
n
Fina
ncin
g
Com
petit
ion
Cha
ngin
gcu
lture
Atti
tude
tow
ards
scie
nce
and
tech
nolo
gy
Soc
ialc
apita
l
Overall indicator
Societal Climatefor InnovationInnovation System
123456789
1011121314151617
123456789
1011121314151617
Germany 2009
USA 2009
Sweden 2009
Frühe Bildung Weiterführende Schule Hochschule Innovation
Impl
emen
tatio
n
Dem
and
Net
wor
king
R&
D
Edu
catio
n
Fina
ncin
g
Com
petit
ion
Cha
ngin
gcu
lture
Atti
tude
tow
ards
scie
nce
and
tech
nolo
gy
Soc
ialc
apita
l
Overall indicator
Societal Climatefor InnovationInnovation System
123456789
1011121314151617
123456789
1011121314151617
Germany 2009
France 2009
Great Britain 2009
Frühe Bildung Weiterführende Schule Hochschule Innovation
Impl
emen
tatio
n
Dem
and
Net
wor
king
R&
D
Edu
catio
n
Fina
ncin
g
Com
petit
ion
Cha
ngin
gcu
lture
Atti
tude
tow
ards
scie
nce
and
tech
nolo
gy
Soc
ialc
apita
l
Overall indicator
Societal Climatefor InnovationInnovation System
123456789
1011121314151617
123456789
1011121314151617
Germany 2009
Belgium 2009
Spain 2009
Frühe Bildung Weiterführende Schule Hochschule Innovation
4 federal states internationallycompared
Frühe Bildung Weiterführende Schule Hochschule Innovation
Four federal states internationally comparedSubindicator „Education“
Frühe Bildung Weiterführende Schule Hochschule Innovation
Spezialisierung auf Höherwertige TechnologienDeutschlands Innovationstreiber sind die „alten“ Industrien
Chemische Erzeugnisse
Maschinenbau
Elektrogeräte
Kraftfahrzeugindustrie
sonstige Fahrzeuge Pharma
EDV
Nachrichtentechnik
Mediz intechnik
0
1
2
3
4
Wertschöpfung (antvaladd_fuevg, spitz_wertsch)*Exporte (ahsaldo_fuevg, ahsaldo_ht_pop)*Beschäftigung (erwpcap_fuevg, spitz_jeein)*
- FuE – intensiven Industrien lassen sich in Höherwertige- und Spitzentechnologien unterteilen
- Deutschlands Spezialisierung liegt eindeutig bei den Höherwertigen Technologien
- Insbesondere die Kraftfahrzeugindustrie, Maschinenbau, Chemische Erzeugnisse und Elektrogeräte haben in Deutschland höhere Anteile als in den 16 Vergleichsländern
- In den Spitzentechnologien ist Deutschland spezialisiert auf die Medizintechnik
- Deutschland hat im Bereich Höherwertiger Technologien einen komparativen Produktionsvorteil. Wie sieht die weltweite Nachfrage nach FuE-Gütern aus?
Frühe Bildung Weiterführende Schule Hochschule Innovation
Analysis of Specific Weak Points: Example of Education
Frühe Bildung Weiterführende Schule Hochschule Innovation
Results of the subindicator „Education“Germany is still one of the weakest
QualityTertiary educationFinancing Further training
Education
Overall expenditures
Expenditure per particpant
stock
flow
Uni-Ranking
WEF
PISA
1. Denmark2. Sweden3. Switzerland..13. Germany
1. Finland2. Switzerland3.Canada..13. Germany
1. Canada2. Sweden3. Switzerland..11. Germany
1. USA2. Denmark3. Switzerland..12. Germany
Frühe Bildung Weiterführende Schule Hochschule Innovation
Dynamics
Frühe Bildung Weiterführende Schule Hochschule Innovation
Comparison of the Innovation Indicator 2007/ 2008 and 2009 Using the structure of 2009
USAUSA
USACHE
CHE
CHESWE
FINFIN FIN
DNK DNKDNK
CAN CANCAN
JPNJPN
JPNNLDNLD
NLDDEU DEU DEU
GBR
GBRGBR
KOR
KOR
KORFRAFRA FRABEL BEL
BELAUT
AUT AUTIRL
IRLIRL
ESP ESPESP
ITA ITA ITA
SWE SWE
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IDE 2007 IDE 2008 IDE 2009
Frühe Bildung Weiterführende Schule Hochschule Innovation
Clustering
Frühe Bildung Weiterführende Schule Hochschule Innovation
Clustering of the 17 analyzed countries
Top: Sweden
USA
Switzerland
Finland
Denmark
Middle: Japan
Germany
Korea
Great Britain
Netherlands
Austria
Ireland
Canada
France
Belgium
Bottom: Spain
Italy
• Composite Indicators• The „Innovation Indicator Germany“• Results 2009 and Comparisons• Conclusions
Frühe Bildung Weiterführende Schule Hochschule Innovation
Conclusion
Innovative capacity of advanced industrialcountries is their most important source of prosperity and growth.The structure of the Innovation Indicator followsthe recomended methodology for buildingcomposite indicators.To be one of the leading countries, it isnecessary to improve most components of thesystem considering the connections and interactionsThe indicator analysis might thus provideguidelines for the EU R&D and innovation policy
Measuring National Systems of Innovation –The „Innovation Indicator“ECFIN „Building a Systemic Approach“
Brussels, 20 Nov. 2009
Prof. Dr. Christian von HirschhausenDIW Berlin / TU Berlin
and Team IDE
top related