A Proposal for a Standard With Innovation Management System

Anca Dodescu
performance external to the firm), Linkages & entrepreneurship, and Intellectual assets (regarding the
innovation efforts at the level of the firm) and Innovators (outputs that cover the effects of firms’
innovation activities). IUS 2011 reflects that Romania, as all modest innovators, is characterized by an
unbalanced research and innovation systems, on the one side, and by a process of “steady
convergence” highlighted above EU27 average growth rates, on the other side. Having an average
growth of 5%, Romania is situated in the category of EU catching-up leaders, together with Bulgaria,
Estonia, Romania, Portugal and Slovenia, and surpassed only by Bulgaria. Looking not only at
average growth rate or at the innovation dimensions that represent relative strengths and relative
weaknesses in national research and innovation systems, but also at all 25 different indicators
considered by IUS2011, a very unbalanced scoreboard, as well as unbalanced growth rates, across
all categories of indicators, are of concern (European Commission 2011e).
There is good news, too. According to National Institute of Statistics (INSSE), the share of
innovative enterprises in total enterprises raised constantly and has nearly doubled between 2002-
2008, from 17% in 2002 to 33% in 2008 (INSSE 2011). Also, innovation turnover rose from 22.7% in
2002 at 38, 8% in 2008. Not as satisfying is the slow growth of R&D expenditure as GDP percentage
from 0,37% in 2000 to 0,47% in 2010, noting that it rose constantly during 2000-2008 but then to fall
from 0, 58% to 0, and 47% because of economic-financial crisis. Also, GDP share of business sector
R&D expenditure is of concern not only because is unimportant as relative value, but has dropped
almost steadily from 0,26% in 2000 at 0,18% in 2010 (INSSE 2011).
Our analysis is preoccupied especially by 2 innovation dimensions captured by the IUS 2011:
Linkages & entrepreneurship and Innovators. With relative values well below the EU27 average, just
over half for SMEs innovating in-house as % of SMEs (55%), and well below half for Innovative SMEs
collaborating with others as % of SMEs (20%), respectively for Public-private co-publications per
million population (17%), and lower growth rates, even negative growth for Innovative SMEs
collaborating with others as % of SMEs, Romanian “Linkages & entrepreneurship” as innovation
dimension is an important signal for innovation policy in order to strengthening networks for innovative
SMEs. Nor the “Innovators” dimension not outperforming the situation near half the EU27 average
with 53% SMEs introducing product or process innovations as well as 66% SMEs introducing
marketing and organisation innovation and, also, unimportant or negative growth rates (European
Commission 2011e).
In this context, Romanian policy to fostering SMEs and innovation should attempt not only national
responses to address “Linkages & entrepreneurship” and “Innovators” as innovation dimensions, but
also regional responses because at regional level structures are more flexible and best practices
quickly assimilated. At present, there are no specifically regional innovation policies in Romania,
innovation policy has only “national focus” (Ranga 2010:3).The innovation policy making body - the
National Authority for Scientific Research (NASR) has no regional coordination, although its mission
includes the support of regional and local development, and the role of the Romanian development
regions as stimulator and co-ordinator of regional innovation systems is weak.
Part of explanation is given by actual “formula” of regionalization by cooperation between existing
local communities and consists of the inclusion of the existing sub-national administrations into the 8
established development regions, by voluntary cooperation of the existing 41 counties, without legal
personality at regional level. In other words, Romanian development regions are not administrativeterritorial
units, and Romania’s type of regionalization - administrative decentralization (by delegation)
- does not imply administrative functions for regions, does not involve changing the administrative
organization of the territory by the formation of regions as new territorial communities superior to the
existing ones. Romanian regional structures do not hold fiscal and functional competencies, and
therefore, no decision powers. This aspect makes the difference between the type of regionalization
that is found in Romania comparing with more advanced forms of regionalization in other EU Member
States, for example, France (administrative regionalization), Italy and Spain (political regionalization),
Germany, Belgium and Austria (regionalization by federal authorities). The actors involved in the
regional development are Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) - created in each region as nongovernmental
organizations responsible for the elaboration of regional development plans and for
implementing and promoting regional development projects, local and national governments. ONG’s
and other actors have a quite restrictive role and are hardly found in the decision making process at
regional level. At local level, county councils are responsible with the elaboration of County
Development Plans that will stand at the basis of the Regional Development Plans and National
170