1. by Emira Becic, Ph.D. Ministry of Science, Education and Sports Republic of Croatia S &T and Innovation Statistics as tool for measurement progress in innovation performance Forum on “Measuring and Fostering the Progress of Societies: A new Approach for CIS and Eastern European Countries” OECD, ROSSTAT and Russian Academy of Labor and Social Relation, 29- 30 September 2008, Moscow

2. Contents 1. Challenges for Measurement 2. Innovation statistics 3. Performance & Impact Analysis 4. ! 4. Some questions !

3. 1. Challenges for Measurement Globalisations Globalisations The Knowledge-based Economy towards a Sustainable Knowledge Society: EU innovation gap with Japan and the US; where is Croatia The Knowledge-based Economy towards a Sustainable Knowledge Society: EU innovation gap with Japan and the US; where is Croatia Internationalisation of R&D Internationalisation of R&D Science policy: towards improving current state of art Science policy: towards improving current state of art Accessing Croatia to EU: Chapter 18 - Statistics Accessing Croatia to EU: Chapter 18 - Statistics

4. Globalisation Ageing population Ageing population – Increasing pressure on public finance -retirement expenditures – Social security – unemployment, healthcare and pensions. Mass immigration and labour markets - impact on growth and productivity Mass immigration and labour markets - impact on growth and productivity – immigration young human capital – Education Environmental sustainability Environmental sustainability Economic environment Economic environment – Incresing global markets – Technological change Investment in Knowledge Investment in Knowledge Energy and increasing lack of natural sources Energy and increasing lack of natural sources

5. USERS and their DEMANDS USERS and their DEMANDS Type of Users Politicians Government Parliament S&T decision policy makers Local authorities Scientific community Business sector Society International organizations NGOsDemands Up-to-date, key indicators by policy-relevant categories Long time series, detailed statistics, comparable indicators by research views General overview, detailed information on their own sector and connecting sectors Mass media, inquiry ranking nations by competitiveness, searching co-operation partners, knowledge of global tendencies

6. 2. Innovation statistics: Relevance, concepts and difficulties in practice

7. The relevance It is generally accepted that in the long-run innovation drives economic growth and welfare, not cheap/abundant resources It is also generally accepted that the market is an insufficient mechanism to optimise investments in innovation, hence policy intervention makes a substantial contribution

8. Innovation statistics are relevant because: They help identify the evolution of deficiencies and shortages in a country over time They allow to compare performances between countries: this benchmarking tool increases the potential of learning from peers

9. But there are problems in capturing innovation There are blurring boundaries in the definition and classification of innovations, hence a need for standards Over time the nature and landscape of innovation change (hence changing models for understanding innovation leading to different emphasis on capturing its elements)

10. The Oslo Manual is a dynamic process Picture and monitor the Knowlege Based Economy/the Knowledge Based Society Standards of surveys in countries with different economic and social backgrounds were adapted to the “Oslo”methodology ask to take into account specific user needs and the characteristics of statistical systems. Complementarity and compatibility with other relevant methodology: e.g. R&D (Frascati Manual), human resources in S&T (Canberra Manual), globalisation indicators, patents, the information society, and biotechnology statistics.

11. Increasing experiences around the world The number of countries conducting innovation surveys is growing: EU countries, other OECD countries such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan, and a large number of non-OECD economies, among them several Latin American countries, Russia and South Africa. CBS of Croatia conducting innovation survey within frame of the EU statistics: – CIS 3 - Pilot survey,2005 for the period 2001-2003 – CIS 4, 2008 for the period 2004-2006 within the frame PHARE Multicountry Programme (February 2007- February 2008) through technical assistance.

12. Some concrete cases USAInnovation data collected by ad hoc surveys at high level, with related topics (R&D survey, labour force surveys). JAPANJapanese National Innovation Survey 2003 (J NIS 2003), very similar to the CIS but adapted KOREA2005 Korean Innovation Survey: the Manufacturing Sector, 2003 the Service Sector Individual EU survey Firm level innovation activity: The IFO Innovation Survey (Germany) CNR ISTAT Survey (Italy) SEO Survey (Netherlands) Nordic Surveys EU level: CIS survey Comunnity Innovation Surveys (CIS1 – CIS 4).

13. CIS 4 TOPICS The statistical indicators presented under CIS 4 domain cover a range of topics related to: Product, process, ongoing and abandoned innovation Innovation activity and expenditure Intramural research and experimental development (R&D) Effects of innovation Public funding of innovation Innovation co-operation Sources of information for innovation Hampered innovation activity Patents and other protection methods Other important organisational and marketing innovations in the enterprise

14. 3. Performance & Impact Analysis - Existence of indicators and impact measurements - Global comparison

15. Performance & Impact Analysis The CIS 4 – Performance & Impact Analysis Data Quality Issues – variation (e.g. –Response Rates variation: Reasons for this are very different willingness to respond (e.g.Different data collection procedures; The ”culture”in the business sector to respond; Different industry and size structures;) Performance & Impact Analysis - Existence of indicators and impact measurements: Indicators from The Community Innovation Survey –CIS used within The European Innovation Scoreboard –EIS (set of indicators used to measure innovation performance by countries and country ranking by Summary Innovation Index-SII) – –Lack of more indicators by countries for calculation SII? – –Data availability by country – –composite indicator scores (relative share) Regional Innovation Scoreboard (RIS) Impact on other Composite Indexes: – –Competitiveness Index as an indicators for measurement progress in competitiveness by national/regional/global level.

16. Identifying policy challenges Trend Chart Synthesis Report, 2006 (EIS –SII, 2006) –(o/w 8 indicators from 26) Three EIS indicators seen as main challenges in 2005: Three EIS indicators seen as main challenges in 2005: –Rates of business expenditure on R&D (16 EU25 and 3/8 eight candidate/associate countries); –Share of science and engineering graduates (13 EU25 and 3/8 eight candidate/associate), and –Participation in life-long learning activities (14 EU25 & 1candidate country) Five other indicators also cited more often: Five other indicators also cited more often: –Population with tertiary educationPopulation education –Broadband penetration rates, –Business financed university R&D –SMEs innovating inSMEs in-house, and –Early stage venture capital.

17. Innovation performanse: EIS-SII SII- Innovation performanse: EIS-SII SII- provide an aggregate national innovation performance

18. International comparison - Global Innovation Scoreboard Izvor: http://www.proinnoeurope.eu/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.display&topicID=84&parentID=51

19. International comparison - Global Innovation Scoreboard Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, Japan, the US, Singapore and Israel are the global innovation leaders. Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, Japan, the US, Singapore and Israel are the global innovation leaders. The group of next-best performers includes Germany, Denmark, Netherlands, Canada, the UK, Republic of Korea, France, Iceland, Norway, Belgium, Australia, Austria, Ireland, Luxembourg and New Zealand. The group of next-best performers includes Germany, Denmark, Netherlands, Canada, the UK, Republic of Korea, France, Iceland, Norway, Belgium, Australia, Austria, Ireland, Luxembourg and New Zealand. The group of follower countries includes the Hong Kong, Russian Federation, Slovenia, Italy, Spain, Czech Republic, Croatia, Estonia, Hungary and Malta. The group of follower countries includes the Hong Kong, Russian Federation, Slovenia, Italy, Spain, Czech Republic, Croatia, Estonia, Hungary and Malta. The group of lagging countries includes Lithuania, Greece, China, Slovakia, South Africa, Portugal, Bulgaria, Turkey, Brazil, Latvia, Mexico, Poland, Argentina, India, Cyprus and Romania. The group of lagging countries includes Lithuania, Greece, China, Slovakia, South Africa, Portugal, Bulgaria, Turkey, Brazil, Latvia, Mexico, Poland, Argentina, India, Cyprus and Romania.

20. SEE: region in transition Source: Ivo, Šlaus (2007). online:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00163287) CountryRangeESI 0 – 100 HDI 0 - 1 GCIRankingGI Ranking 62 - 1 HLS 0 - 100 SlLOVENIA58.80.879312569.5 CROATIA62.50.809532266.0 B & H 51.3………61.5 S & MN …………61 MACEDONIA47.20.77281…56 ROMANIA…0.775754059.5 GREECE50.90.8853526… ALBANIA59.70.733……… ITALY47.20.913412484.5 AUSTRIA64.20.92617881.5 HUNGARY62.70.835332365.0 CZECH REPUBLIC 50.20.849391569.5 TURKEY50.80.742655372.0 USA53.20.93921189.5 IRELAND54.80.92530190.5 FINLAND73.90.93011091.5

21. ! 4. Instead of conclusion: Some questions ! Is it worth launching innovation surveys in the CIS/SEE countries? If yes, should that be on an individual basis, or as a regional exercise? If the latter is the case is the Oslo Manual, the Bogota or a new regional manual be the most appropriate tool? Would a regional benchmarking exercise (EIS- like) be useful?

22. Croatia

24. Thanks for your attention! emira.becic@mzos.hr