Klyngepolitik på et faktabaseret grundlag - Dansk Biotek

More documents

Recommendations

Info

FORA RAPPORT KLYNGEPOLITIK PÅ ET FAKTABASERET GRUNDLAG Table 2.4 Innovation performance of life science clusters in the selected BSR regions Innovation Rank Region 1 Copenhagen 2 Malmö 3 Stockholm 4 Gothenburg 5 Kiel 6 Helsinki Source: Copenhagen Economics based on BSR Life Science Survey As we have used equal weights in the calculation of the innovation index, we have examined if the ranking is independent of the weights used. Instead of using equal weights, we drew random weights and calculated new innovation indices for firms and regions and then ranked the regions. This was repeated 6000 times in order to establish the robustness. The results show that the innovation performance ranking is largely independent of the weights used in the ranking, cf. Figure 2.1. Figure 2.1 Regional ranking using innovation index is robust Rank Best ranked Worst ranked 1 2 3 4 5 6 Copenhagen Malmö Stockholm East_Denmark South_Sweden Stockholm West_Sweden Schleswig_Holstein South_finland Note: The innovation performance is a composite index of four elements. This robustness analysis shows the results of 6000 random weights of these elements. The box signifies the observations between the 25 pct and the 75 pct quartile. The lower and upper bars indicate 10 pct and 90 pct percentile respectively. Source: Copenhagen Economics based on the BSR Life Science Survey We continued the analysis with the hypothesis that better framework conditions affect the level of innovation carried out by firms in the six selected regions. The better the framework conditions the more innovation and ultimately improved productivity and growth. First, we tested the relationship between innovation and framework conditions by examining the cor- Gothenburg Kiel Helsinki 8 S.118
FORA RAPPORT KLYNGEPOLITIK PÅ ET FAKTABASERET GRUNDLAG relation between them. Second, we tried a regression analysis to determine if such a relationship could be found. We have correlated the firm level responses on innovation activity and perceptions of framework conditions, in order to see if there could be a link. From this analysis, we found that only Human Resources and Entrepreneurship framework conditions have somewhat high correlation, although only in the range of 0.18 to 0.17, respectively. Taken together the average of framework indices has a higher correlation of about 20 percent, cf. Table 2.5. Table 2.5 Correlation of indices – innovation and framework indices Innovation 1 Innovation Overall framework conditions Overall framework conditions 0.1950 1 Human Resources Human Resources 0.1702 0. 5582 1 Entrepreneurship Entrepreneurship 0.1773 0.7257 0.1066 1 Knowledge Knowledge 0.1393 0.7968 0.5623 0.3157 1 Regulation 0.0351 0.6084 0.2277 0.1202 0.2871 Source: Copenhagen Economics based on the BSR Life Science Survey In the regression analysis, we tested a range of specifications to describe a possible relationship between the innovation performance and the calculated perceptions of framework conditions reported by the firms. The result from the regression analyses show that overall there is a positive and significant relationship between good framework conditions and innovation performance, cf. Table 2.6. Table 2.6 Regression results – the selected regions Model Sign Significance R 2 a) Innovation = α Overall framework conditions +ε Positive Yes 0.017 b) Innovation = α HR +ε Positive Yes 0.019 c) Innovation = α Entrepreneurship + ε Positive Yes 0.011 d) Innovation = α Knowledge + ε Positive Yes 0.011 e) Innovation = α Regulation + ε Negative No 0.001 f) Innovation= α HR + β Knowledge + HR: Positive HR: Yes 0.037 δ Entrepreneurship + θ Regulation + ε Knowledge: Positive Knowledge: No Entrepreneurship: Positive Entrepreneurship: Yes Regulation: Negative Regulation: No Source: Copenhagen Economics based on the BSR Life Science Survey In spite of these identified relationships being significant, the explanatory power of the policy variables is low. Between 1 and 2 percent of the variation in innovation can be explained by framework conditions. The weak relationship is partly because of the few number of regions in the estimations, and because the large variation within regions in the firms’ evalua- 9 S.119
Page 1 and 2:
Klyngepolitik på et faktabaseret g
Page 3 and 4:
FORA RAPPORT KLYNGEPOLITIK PÅ ET F
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
— Kapitel I Klynger er vigtige fo
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68: FORA RAPPORT KLYNGEPOLITIK PÅ ET F
Page 117: FORA RAPPORT KLYNGEPOLITIK PÅ ET F
Page 133: FORA RAPPORT KLYNGEPOLITIK PÅ ET F
show all

Klyngepolitik på et faktabaseret grundlag - Dansk Biotek

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?