The Global Innovation Index 2012

More documents

Recommendations

Info

106 THE GLOBAL INNOVATION INDEX 2012 4: Accounting for Science-Industry Collaboration In general, however, the qualitative dimension of collaboration (exactly how important such collaboration is, and via which levers it occurs) is often uncertain when looking at these survey results. An exception is seen when some more detailed industry studies have been carried out as a follow-up. More importantly, existing metrics and more detailed studies struggle to shed light on the ensuing downstream effect and impact of university and PRO outputs and the collaboration of industry with these institutions. Additional related impacts of cooperation may materialize over time, complicating the accurate measurement of impacts further. Conclusions This chapter shows that it is infeasible to reduce the complex web of science-industry relations and their indirect and direct effects on industrial innovation to a single-headling figure. Possible metrics are often not available for many countries, and those that are available are imperfect in their ability to encapsulate the complex set of overlapping interactions and knowledge flows. It is hoped that in the near future it will be possible to use a cluster of variables to measure the intensity and efficacy of science-industry collaboration. Certainly, an important objective of the GII exercise is to point to the current state of data in a given innovation policy field and to encourage the improvement of its metrics. Notes 1 WIPO, 2011a. 2 NRC, 2003. 3 NSB, 2012. 4 NRC, 2003; WIPO, 2011b. 5 Freeman and Soete, 2007. 6 See Eurostat and OECD, 2005; RICYT, 2001. 7 Veugelers, 2007. 8 Statistics Access for Tech Transfer (STATT), AUTM, May 2011, available at http://www. autmsurvey.org/statt/index.cfm. 9 See WIPO 2011b for a summary of available data and a related discussion. 10 For a discussion of this point, see WIPO, 2011b. 11 Following the OECD Frascati Manual on R&D Survey Standards, the definition of higher education sector covers all universities, colleges of technology, and other institutions of post-secondary education, whatever their source of finance or legal status. It also includes all research institutes, experimental stations and clinics operating under the direct control of or administered by or associated with higher education institutions. 12 OECD, 2011. 13 See Box 4.3 in WIPO, 2011b; see also Khan and Wunsch-Vincent, 2011. 14 EC, 2009. 15 WIPO, 2011b. 16 WIPO, 2011b; Zuñiga, 2011. 17 Guiri et al., 2007. 18 Guiri et al., 2007. 19 See the project ‘Academic Patenting in Europe (APE-INV)’, steered by Francesco Lissoni at http://www.esf-ape-inv.eu/index. php, for some work in the field. 20 Breschi and Catalini, 2010. 21 Crespi et al., 2006. 22 The Executive Opinion Survey is given annually to thousands of business executives to gather their insight into their business operating environment. For further information on this survey, see Brown and Geiger, 2011. 23 The survey question asks ‘To what extent do business and universities collaborate on research and development (R&D) in your country?’ Possible answers: 1 = do not collaborate at all; 7 = collaborate extensively. See https://wefsurvey.org. 24 See Chapter 1 of this report. 25 In the future, another potential source of information is the World Bank Enterprise Survey, which has a large country coverage. Its Innovation and Technology Module currently has only one linkage question, which is related to the share of firms using technology licensed from foreign companies. 26 Eurostat and OECD, 2005. Questions on sources of information and cooperation (the latter focused only on R&D activities) have been in the CIS questionnaire since its first round. In 2005, the whole issue of linkages was emphasized by the Oslo Manual (3rd edition). The document in which UIS and RICYT are also emphasizing linkages in developing countries is an annex to the 3rd edition of manual. 27 RICYT undertook the first effort to develop guidelines for innovation surveys outside of the OECD and the European Union. This resulted in the Bogotá Manual, which is used in most innovation surveys conducted in Latin American countries. See http://www. ricyt.org/. 28 The UIS has developed a pilot data collection that has been conducted in 2011. The pilot was focused on the gathering of national data from the most recent national innovation surveys in 19 pre-selected countries: Brazil, China, Colombia, Egypt, Ghana, Indonesia, Israel, Malaysia, the Philippines, the Russian Federation, South Africa, and Uruguay. Thanks go to Martin Schaaper and Luciana Marins from the UIS for providing this and related information. 29 Thanks go to Martin Schaaper and Luciana Marins from UIS for providing this and related information. The data will be published in the summer of 2012 under the title ‘Results of the 2011 Pilot Innovation Data Collection’, conducted by the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS). 30 Cosh et al., 2006. 31 Mohnen and Hoareau, 2003; Mairesse and Mohnen, 2010. 32 See the US Business R&D and Innovation Survey, available at http://www.nsf.gov/ statistics/srvyindustry/about/brdis/. References Breschi, S., and C. Catalini. 2010. ‘Tracing the Links Between Science and Technology: An Exploratory Analysis of Scientists’ and Inventors’ Networks’. Research Policy 39 (1). Browne, C., and T. Geiger. 2011. ‘The Executive Opinion Survey: An Indispensable Tool in the Assessment of National Competitiveness’. The Global Competitiveness Report 2011–2012, pp. 75–83. Geneva: World Economic Forum. Cosh, A., A. Hughes, and R. K. Lester. 2006. ‘UK plc: Just How Innovative Are We? Findings from the Cambridge-MIT Institute Project on International Innovation Benchmarking’. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Working Paper Series MIT-IPD-06-009. Available at http://web.mit.edu/ipc/publications/pdf/06- 009.pdf.
Crespi, G. A., A. Geuna, and L. J. J. Nesta. 2006. ‘Labour Mobility of Academic Inventors: Career Decision and Knowledge Transfer’. SPRU Electronic Working Paper Series 139, University of Sussex, SPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research. Du Plessis, M., B. Van Looy, X. Song, and T. Magerman. 2010. Data Production Methods for Harmonized Patent Statistics: Patentee Sector Allocation 2009. Brussels: Eurostat. EC (European Commission). 2009. Metrics for Knowledge Transfer from Public Research Organisations in Europe: Report from the European Commission’s Group on Knowledge Transfer Metrics Expert Group Report. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/pdf/ download_en/knowledge_transfer_web.pdf. Eurostat and OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2005. Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data, 3rd edition. Paris: OECD. Freeman, C., and L. Soete. 2007. ‘Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators: The Twenty-First Century Challenges’. In OECD, Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators in a Changing World: Responding to Policy Needs, pp. 271–84. Paris: OECD. Giuri, P., M. Mariani, and other PatVal contributors. 2007. ‘Inventors and Invention Processes in Europe: Results from the PatVal-EU Survey’. Research Policy 36 (8): 1107–27. Khan, M., and S. Wunsch-Vincent. 2011. ‘Capturing Innovation: The Patent System’. In The Global Innovation Index Report 2011, Chapter 1, Box 6. Fontainebleu: INSEAD. Mairesse, J., and P. Mohnen. 2010. ‘Using Innovations Surveys for Econometric Analysis’. NBER Working Papers 15857. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Mohnen, P., and C. Hoareau. 2003. ‘What Type of Enterprise Forges Close Links with Universities and Government Labs? Evidence from CIS 2’. Managerial and Decision Economics 24: 133–46. NRC (National Research Council). 2003. Innovation in Information Technology. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NSB (National Science Board). 2012. Science and Engineering Indicators 2012. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2009. Policy Responses to the Economic Crisis: Investing in Innovation for Long-Term Growth. Paris: OECD. Available at http://www.oecd.org/ dataoecd/59/45/42983414.pdf. ——— . 2011. ‘Connecting to Knowledge’. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2011. Chapter 3. OECD: Paris. OECD and UIS (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and UNESCO’s Institute for Statistics). 2012. ‘Measuring R&D in Developing Countries’. Annex to the Frascati Manual, Working Party of National Experts on Science and Technology Indicators. Paris: OECD. RICYT (Iberoamerican Network of Science and Technology Indicators). 2001. Bogota Manual: Standardisation of Indicators of Technological Innovation in Latin American and Caribbean Countries. Available at http://www.uis. unesco.org/Library/Documents/Bogota%20 Manual_eng.pdf. Veugelers, R. 2007. ‘Developments in EU Statistics on Science, Technology and Innovation’. In OECD, Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators in a Changing World: Responding to Policy Needs, pp. 33-45. Paris: OECD. WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization). 2010. ‘The Impact of the Economic Crisis and Recovery on Innovation’. Special theme in World IP Indicators 2010 Geneva: WIPO. Available at http://www.wipo.int/ipstats/en/. ———. 2011a. ‘The Changing Nature of Innovation and Intellectual Property’.In World Intellectual Property Report 2011, Chapter 1. Geneva: WIPO. Available at http://www.wipo.int/ econ_stat/en/economics/publications.html. ———. 2011b. ‘Harnessing Public Research for Innovation: The Role of Intellectual Property’. In World Intellectual Property Report 2011, Chapter 4. Geneva: WIPO. ———. 2012. PCT Yearly Review. Geneva: WIPO. Zuñiga, P. 2011. ‘The State of Patenting at Research Institutions in Developing Countries: Policy Approaches and Practices’. WIPO Economics Research Working Papers No. 4. Geneva: WIPO. 107 THE GLOBAL INNOVATION INDEX 2012 4: Accounting for Science-Industry Collaboration
Page 1:
The Global Innovation Index 2012 St
Page 4 and 5:
The Global Innovation Index 2012: S
Page 6 and 7:
iv THE GLOBAL INNOVATION INDEX 2012
Page 8 and 9:
vi THE GLOBAL INNOVATION INDEX 2012
Page 11:
Foreword The Coherence Premium in I
Page 15:
cONTrIBuTOrS Contributors to the Re
Page 19 and 20:
Rankings
Page 21:
Global Innovation Index rankings (c
Page 25 and 26:
cHApTEr 1 The Global Innovation Ind
Page 27 and 28:
The GII helps to create an environm
Page 29 and 30:
4. The Innovation Efficiency Index
Page 31 and 32:
Table 1: Global Innovation Index ra
Page 33 and 34:
Table 2: Innovation Input Sub-Index
Page 35 and 36:
Table 3: Innovation Output Sub-Inde
Page 37 and 38:
Box 1: A spotlight on the United St
Page 39 and 40:
Figure 2: Innovation Output Sub-Ind
Page 41 and 42:
Malta is ranked 16th in the GII 201
Page 43 and 44:
Figure 3: Global Innovation Index v
Page 45 and 46:
Table 5a: Innovation Efficiency Ind
Page 47 and 48:
Figure 4: GII scores v. GDP per cap
Page 49 and 50:
Table 5c: Innovation Efficiency Ind
Page 51 and 52:
Figure 5: Average scores for select
Page 53 and 54:
performances on key indicators and
Page 55 and 56:
pillars, however, place it among th
Page 57 and 58:
eflect the situation of the countri
Page 59 and 60:
PPP$ 3,354.8 Viet Nam has a very go
Page 61 and 62:
6. Northern America continues to be
Page 63:
Freeman, C., and L. Soete. 2007.
Page 66 and 67:
44 THE GLOBAL INNOVATION INDEX 2012
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79: 56 THE GLOBAL INNOVATION INDEX 2012
Page 111 and 112: cHApTEr 3 Academia-Industry Innovat
Page 113 and 114: Intel, Microsoft, Motorola, Nokia,
Page 115 and 116: Figure 2: Intermediary university-i
Page 117: the best combinations of foreign te
Page 131 and 132: cHApTEr 5 The Role of Coherent Link
Page 133 and 134: Figure 1: Innovation policy framewo
Page 135 and 136: which is good. However, the role of
Page 137 and 138: Box 1: Strengthening the innovation
Page 139 and 140: Figure 4: Conceptual framework for
Page 141 and 142: Box 2: Saudi Arabia: Linking innova
Page 143 and 144: cHApTEr 6 The Russian Federation: A
Page 145 and 146: Figure 2: Expenditure on technologi
Page 147 and 148: in pharmaceuticals, computers, tele
Page 149 and 150: financial sustainability, and the v
Page 151 and 152: ex-territorial innovation centre wi
Page 153 and 154: cHApTEr 7 Shaping the National Inno
Page 155 and 156: Table 1: Idea-to-market curve 1. po
Page 157 and 158: is around 8%—very low, even compa
Page 159 and 160: culture, environment, and economy.1
Page 161: 13 See the Department of Biotechnol
Page 165 and 166: cHApTEr 8 An Integrated Policy Appr
Page 167 and 168: institutions in developing countrie
Page 169 and 170: egan to publish monographs on STI p
Page 171 and 172: cHApTEr 9 Broadband, Inevitable Inn
Page 173 and 174: Figure 1: Global ICT developments,
Page 175 and 176: Figure 3: Global fixed and mobile b
Page 177 and 178: Figure 4: Evolution of ICT-innovati
Page 179 and 180:
cHApTEr 10 The Internet: An Unprece
Page 181 and 182:
egularly update their pages and sha
Page 183 and 184:
Google’s anti-SOPA page, resultin
Page 185 and 186:
cHApTEr 11 We Are All Content Creat
Page 187 and 188:
Table 1: Models of creative industr
Page 189 and 190:
than any single major recording lab
Page 191:
Pélissié du Rausas, M., J. Manyik
Page 195:
Country/Economy Profiles I
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Page 306 and 307:
Page 308 and 309:
Page 310 and 311:
Page 312 and 313:
Page 314 and 315:
Page 316 and 317:
Page 318 and 319:
Page 320 and 321:
Page 322 and 323:
Page 324 and 325:
Page 326 and 327:
Page 328 and 329:
Page 330 and 331:
Page 332 and 333:
Page 334 and 335:
Page 336 and 337:
Page 338 and 339:
Page 340 and 341:
Page 343 and 344:
THE GLOBAL INNOVATION INDEX 2012 II
Page 345 and 346:
Index of Data Tables 1 Institutions
Page 347 and 348:
1.1.1 Political stability and absen
Page 349 and 350:
1.1.3 Press freedom Press freedom i
Page 351 and 352:
1.2.2 Rule of law Rule of law index
Page 353 and 354:
1.3.1 Ease of starting a business E
Page 355 and 356:
1.3.3 Ease of paying taxes Ease of
Page 357 and 358:
2.1.2 Public expenditure on educati
Page 359 and 360:
2.1.4 Assessment in reading, mathem
Page 361 and 362:
2.2.1 Tertiary enrolment School enr
Page 363 and 364:
2.2.3 Tertiary inbound mobility Ter
Page 365 and 366:
2.3.1 Researchers Researchers, head
Page 367 and 368:
2.3.3 Quality of scientific researc
Page 369 and 370:
3.1.2 ICT use ICT use index* | 2010
Page 371 and 372:
3.1.4 Online e-participation E-part
Page 373 and 374:
3.2.2 Electricity consumption Elect
Page 375 and 376:
3.2.4 Gross capital formation Gross
Page 377 and 378:
3.3.2 Environmental performance Env
Page 379 and 380:
4.1.1 Ease of getting credit Ease o
Page 381 and 382:
4.1.3 Microfinance institutions’
Page 383 and 384:
4.2.2 Market capitalization Market
Page 385 and 386:
4.2.4 Venture capital deals Venture
Page 387 and 388:
4.3.2 Market access for non-agricul
Page 389 and 390:
4.3.4 Exports of goods and services
Page 391 and 392:
5.1.1 Employment in knowledge-inten
Page 393 and 394:
5.1.3 GERD performed by business en
Page 395 and 396:
5.1.5 GMAT mean score Weighted mean
Page 397 and 398:
5.2.1 University/industry research
Page 399 and 400:
5.2.3 GERD financed by abroad GERD:
Page 401 and 402:
5.2.5 Share of patents with foreign
Page 403 and 404:
5.3.2 High-tech imports High-tech n
Page 405 and 406:
5.3.4 Foreign direct investment net
Page 407 and 408:
6.1.2 Patent Cooperation Treaty app
Page 409 and 410:
6.1.4 Scientific and technical jour
Page 411 and 412:
6.2.2 New business density New busi
Page 413 and 414:
6.2.4 ISO 9001 quality certificates
Page 415 and 416:
6.3.2 High-tech exports High-tech n
Page 417 and 418:
6.3.4 Foreign direct investment net
Page 419 and 420:
7.1.2 Madrid Agreement trademark re
Page 421 and 422:
7.1.4 ICT and organizational models
Page 423 and 424:
7.2.2 National feature films produc
Page 425 and 426:
7.2.4 Creative goods exports Creati
Page 427 and 428:
7.3.1 Generic top-level domains (gT
Page 429 and 430:
7.3.3 Wikipedia monthly edits Wikip
Page 431:
Sources and Definitions III
Page 434 and 435:
412 1 Institutions THE GLOBAL INNOV
Page 436 and 437:
414 2 Human capital and research TH
Page 438 and 439:
416 3 Infrastructure (continued) TH
Page 440 and 441:
418 4 Market sophistication THE GLO
Page 442 and 443:
420 5 Business sophistication (cont
Page 444 and 445:
422 6 Knowledge and technology outp
Page 446 and 447:
424 7 Creative outputs (continued)
Page 449:
Technical Notes IV
Page 452 and 453:
Page 455:
About the Authors V
Page 458 and 459:
Page 460 and 461:
Page 462:
show all

The Global Innovation Index 2012

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?