Presentation on theme: "Dimitrios Pontikakis 2,1 Luisa Henriques 3,1 Laura de Dominicis 1 1 European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective and Technological."— Presentation transcript:
Dimitrios Pontikakis 2,1 Luisa Henriques 3,1 Laura de Dominicis 1 1 European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective and Technological Studies (IPTS) 2 Newcastle Business School, University of Northumbria 3 Portuguese Science and Technology Foundation
Overview EUSPRI June 2012, Karlsruhe3 1.Introduction 2.Definition and components of ERIS 3.Structural Change in the ERIS 4.Conclusions
ERIS EUSPRI June 2012, Karlsruhe4 The emerging ERIS can be understood as a system of research and innovation relations between actors located inside the borders of the EU-27 at multiple levels –European, national and regional – to produce, diffuse and explore new knowledge for new products, industrial processes and services for the benefit European citizens. ERIS ≠ ERA
Questions: Following decades of cooperation and integration in the European research activity, infrastructures, and policies, is there something like a European Research and Innovation System (ERIS) in place? If so then What is the structural configuration of ERIS and what are the (policy) implications of such structure? EUSPRI June 2012, Karlsruhe5
1. Exploratory analysis of the emergence of ERIS EUSPRI June 2012, Karlsruhe6
What do we know already? EUSPRI June 2012, Karlsruhe7 1.European collaborative links are growing faster (Mattson et.al, 2008) and diversified over time (Frenken, 2002, Okubo and Zitt, 2004). 2.There is an increasing European ‘systemness’ (Frenken and Leydersdorff, 2004, Hoekman, 2010; Paier and Scherngell, 2011). 3.European system is emerging as a ‘system of systems’ (Gergersen and Johnson, 1996) similar to the implicit structure described by Caracostas and Soete (1997) post-national system. 4.With an emergent multi-level governance framework for R&I policies (Edler and Kuhlmann, 2005). 5.And European shared values and final aims, but no institutional or geographical delineation (Borrás, 2004).
European policies trajectories European policies trajectories 1950s-1970s integration programming and performance in specific areas (JRC, IGO) 1970s-2000 coordination of performance (FP, SF) Since 2000 coordination of programming in public funding EUSPRI June 2012, Karlsruhe8 Intermingled dynamics o Integration o Coordination
Is ERIS in the making? EUSPRI June 2012, Karlsruhe9 Integrity Distinctiveness Source: Erawatch
Quantitative approach to the question of ERIS Objective: To measure European integration (/distinctiveness) in S&T Method: Calculate ratios of intra- over extra-EU co-publications, co patents, spatial autocorrelation of patent counts between regions in the opposite sides of national borders (“knowledge spillovers”) Findings: Evidence of substantial integration in co-patenting (x2 more than non-EU), and co-publication (x4 more than non-EU). However, national borders still matter. Stability over time. EUSPRI June 2012, Karlsruhe10
2. Structural change in the ERIS What does measurement tell us? EUSPRI June 2012, Karlsruhe11
Drivers of structural change Objective Identify key factors (/groups of) that drive structural change Method/data Panel regression (EU27, 3 time periods over ) of overall shift-share across EPO patent sectors (Y) against GERD, proxies of technological structure (diversity/concentration) and a composite indicator of international Openness (Dreher, 2006) Findings Magnitude of resources impacts negatively. Over time national systems have become less responsive. Only Openness exerts a positive and quantitatively distinct effect. EUSPRI June 2012, Karlsruhe12
Impact of structural variables on capacities Objective Assess relationship between structural configuration (e.g. Concentration/diversity/related variety) and policy approaches (strengthening the strengths/diversifying) on national innovative capacity Method Knowledge production function, panel regression EU EPO patents (Y) regressed on various alternative proxies of structure plus control vars. Findings Context matters a lot: Even when individual structural variables were found to have an effect, the magnitude of this effect as well as its sign (positive/negative) change depending on the group of countries considered. EUSPRI June 2012, Karlsruhe13
Conclusions - 1 EUSPRI June 2012, Karlsruhe14 1.Evidence of ERIS in the making – with an institutional framework closely resembling that of a NIS, with interlinked communities, shared values and purpose 2.Europeanisation processes progress differently in programming and performance. In performance is relatively stagnant close to the limits imposed by cultural-linguistic fault-lines. Programming is advancing faster. 3.National authorities retain an important role namely in creating capabilities and steering national resources.
Conclusions - 2 EUSPRI June 2012, Karlsruhe15 1.Existence of important differences with respect to structural change between emerging and mature R&I systems. 2.International openness is the single most important driver of structural change – further internationalisation (incl. Europeanisation) should act positively. 3.Our findings from the impact of structural configurations on innovative performance emphasise context-specificity. Familiar caveats against one-size-fits all policies seem particularly relevant to the case of structural change.
Thank you Dimitrios Pontikakis Luisa Henriques EUSPRI June 2012, Karlsruhe16
EUSPRI June 2012, Karlsruhe17 Related variety Unrelated variety Herfindahl concentration Overall diversity Shannon diversity Duplication wrt to EU27 average Shift ratio Concentration in 'high expectation' patenting (ICT, Biotech, Nanotech) ICT as proportion of manufacturing output Biotech as proportion of manufacturing output Belgium Denmark Finland Ireland United Kingdom Netherlands Austria Sweden Germany France Italy Spain Portugal Greece Luxembourg Estonia Latvia Lithuania Slovenia Czech Republic Hungary Poland Bulgaria Romania Slovakia Cyprus Malta Indicators of technological structure (country average scores over period expressed in standard deviations from cross-country variable mean)
Direction of technological change vs. policy making EUSPRI June 2012, Karlsruhe18 Indicator name DefinitionRelationship in the system CA1 Structural correlation between a country's NABS92 distributions of GBAORD with GERD of the year before. Government System Propensity of government R&D funding to direct resources to areas of existing capabilities. CA2 Structural correlation between a country's NACE distributions of BERD funded by government with BERD of the year before. Government Private sector Propensity of government support for private R&D to direct resources to areas of existing capabilities. CA3 Structural correlation between a country's NACE distributions of BERD with EPO Patents of the year before. Private sector Technology Propensity of private technology funding in allocating resources to areas of past success. CA4 Structural correlation between a country's Fields of Science distributions of GERD with Scientific publications of the year before. System Science Propensity of public funding for science and markets in allocating resources to areas of past success. CA1CA2CA3CA4 Belgium0.82 Denmark Finland Ireland United Kingdom-1.94 Netherlands Austria-1.09 Sweden Germany France1.07 Italy-0.09 Spain Portugal Greece-0.6 Luxembourg1 Estonia Latvia Lithuania Slovenia Czech Republic Hungary Poland Bulgaria Romania Slovakia Cyprus Malta
Measuring ERIS : a few options EUSPRI June 2012, Karlsruhe19 SYSTEM PROPERTYCRITERIONINDICATOR INTEGRITY (internal) COHERENCE (Eqduist, 2001) -Number of co-publications, co-patents (Number of joint-research projects (FP, COST, EUREKA, TFSD, etc.), including network metrics) SIMILARITY - Spatial autocorrelation (of resources, capabilities) - Structural correlation (of resources, capabilities) BALANCE & VARIETY (Stirling, 2007) -Gini index (of resources, capabilities) DISTINCTIVENESS (external) DISTANCE Indicators of functional, technological, cognitive DISSIMILARITY - Variance of S&T specialisation (e.g. EU vs global) - Structural correlation matrices (of resources, capabilities) ORIENTATION (inward/outward, Edquist, 2001) Ratio of inward vs outward: -co-publications (ISI WoK, RKF) -co-patents (OECD Triadic) -joint R&D ventures (TFSD)
European boundary! European plateau? EUSPRI June 2012, Karlsruhe20 Intra- over Extra-EU co-publications Intra- over Extra-EU co-patents
Knowledge spillovers in border regions EUSPRI June 2012, Karlsruhe21
Impact of structural variables on capacities EUSPRI June 2012, Karlsruhe22 Knowledge outputs (EPO PATENTS) Sectoral Structure (STRUCTURE) Existing knowledge (PSTOCK) R&D expenditures (GERD) Indicator Country groups EU27EU15Innovation Leaders & Followers New Member States CA *.. CA2.. CA ** ** CA *.. Related variety *.. Unrelated variety..0.05* * Herfindahl concentration0.118*** **0.242*** Overall diversity.. Shannon diversity.. Duplication wrt to EU27 average-0.075** ** Shift ratio **0.064*.. Concentration in 'high expectation' patenting (ICT, Biotech, Nanotech).. ICT as proportion of manufacturing output *** ***-0.068***.. Biotech as proportion of manufacturing output **.. *, ** and *** denote statistical significance at the 90, 95 and 99% levels respectively.
Drivers of structural change EUSPRI June 2012, Karlsruhe23 National structural change (measured as the average across sectors of the weight of the country-shift component over total change in patents) Depends on: Scale of resources devoted to R&D (proxied by GERD) The existing structure of the system, which captures its proximity to emerging or dominant techno-economic paradigms (STRUCTURE, which in this case is a vector of our several alternative proxies of structure) International openness (OPENNESS a proxy for which captures the availability of channels for international knowledge transfer and influence on national direction by changes in the global technology frontier). STRUCTURAL CHANGE i,t = α + β 1 ln(GERD i,t )+ β 2 (STRUCTURE i,t )+ β 3 (OPENNESS i,t )+u i,t STRUCTURAL CHANGE i,t = = *** *** ln(GERD i,t ) *(OPENNESS i,t ) – 0.073*(YEAR) + u i,t