Comparison of innovation policies in selected European, Asian and ...

distinct. The rank scores range from 5 (most intensive) to 1 (least intensive). The rank scores
are discussed for each of the features and are summarised in a table. Charts were then
prepared to compare pairs of features for all countries in scatter plots. This was done in order
to inform a discussion on similarities and differences in innovation systems. Finally, the data
were averaged and rank ordered to compare countries on these dimensions.
The two frameworks for assessing NIS policies are necessarily limited. The main limitation is
that each assessment, while based on expert opinion, is still a personal assessment. It remains
possible that other experts making these assessments would produce different scores, although
we would like to think that even if such scores were different in detail they would still be
similar in general. In effect, our experts have made qualitative judgements in forming their
scores. Further, comparing European and Pacific Rim countries required using quite different
data sources so it is possible that some the of the results are a reflection of data sources used
rather than actual differences in results. Accordingly, we cannot argue for strong conclusions
on the basis of the evidence presented and, at best, our conclusions are indicative only.
However, the conclusions are still important because they provide the best available answers
to our research questions. Until better measures of NIS policy are available then assessments
such as those reported here are our only way of addressing the policy questions asked.
1.4 Choice of case-study countries
A wide range of case-study countries were considered for study. The authors’ early thinking
suggested that suitable case-study countries for comparison with New Zealand were those
with similarity to New Zealand by virtue of being relatively small, open economies and at
some distance from the major markets. Upon further thought additional criteria were added. A
more implicit criterion “quality of innovation policies” was used in the selection of a subset of
exemplary case-study countries including Austria, The Netherlands, Finland, Denmark and
Sweden. These countries have a long history of innovation policies and have good availability
of policy intelligence in the form of monitoring, analysis and evaluation. The availability of
this type of information is highly relevant when the question of policy effectiveness is of
concern. Further, some countries were chosen because they are considered ‘developing’ and
have parallels with New Zealand in this regard. Finally, location in the Pacific Rim was
another factor used in case-study country selection. Several small but highly innovative Asian
nations were selected for inclusion in the study as well as Australia which shares a similar
cultural heritage, namely European, with New Zealand. The final list of 21 countries is
shown in Table 1.3 which also has the nations grouped by the level of development of their
innovation system. The categories of developmental stage are: Leader, Follower, Moderate,
and Moderate in Transition and were developed by PRO INNO 3
. The PRO-INNO-Policy
TrendChart describes and analyses major innovation policy trends at national and regional
levels across Europe in an independent way. It aims to contribute to policy assessment and to
identify examples of good practice, thus improving the basis for decision making in
innovation policy. A policy monitoring network tracks developments in innovation policy
measures in 39 countries.
3 http://www.proinno-europe.eu/
6