13.07.2015 Views

Competing in the Single Market - SMEs and ... - Erhvervsstyrelsen

Competing in the Single Market - SMEs and ... - Erhvervsstyrelsen

Competing in the Single Market - SMEs and ... - Erhvervsstyrelsen

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Of <strong>the</strong> available <strong>in</strong>novation statistics, national expenditure on R&D as a percentage of GDP isgenerally considered both one of <strong>the</strong> most important <strong>in</strong>dicators, <strong>and</strong> one of <strong>the</strong> determ<strong>in</strong>ants of acountry’s <strong>in</strong>novative capacity. Given <strong>the</strong> importance assigned to R&D with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> national <strong>in</strong>novationsystem, <strong>the</strong> extremely low total <strong>in</strong>vestment <strong>in</strong> R&D <strong>in</strong> all <strong>the</strong> B4 countries could be <strong>in</strong>terpreted as aworry<strong>in</strong>g sign of low national <strong>in</strong>novative capacity (see Table 4). Whereas public expenditure on R&Dis roughly one third of <strong>the</strong> average share for <strong>the</strong> EU-15, private sector expenditure on R&D amountsto only about one sixth of <strong>the</strong> EU equivalent. 7Table 4: Expenditure on R&D (as a percentage of GDP)Total Public Bus<strong>in</strong>ess Data fromSweden 4.27 0.96 3.31 2001F<strong>in</strong>l<strong>and</strong> 3.41 1.02 2.47 2002Germany 2.49 0.73 1.76 2001Denmark 2.40 0.75 1.65 2001Norway 1.62 0.65 0.97 2002Irel<strong>and</strong> 1.24 0.37 0.87Spa<strong>in</strong> 0.96 0.46 0.50 2001Portugal 0.84 0.57 0.27 2001Estonia 0.78 0.53 0.26 2001Lithuania 0.69 0.49 0.20 2001Pol<strong>and</strong> 0.68 0.43 0.24Greece 0.67 0.48 0.19 1999Latvia 0.44 0.28 0.16 2001EU 1.99 0.69 1.30 2002Source: European Innovation Scoreboard 2003Summ<strong>in</strong>g up, <strong>the</strong>re appears to be a significant gap between <strong>the</strong> B4 countries <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> exist<strong>in</strong>g EUMember Countries, when it comes to <strong>the</strong> ability to <strong>in</strong>novate. However, it would be hasty, <strong>and</strong>wrong, to conclude from <strong>the</strong>se observations that <strong>the</strong> B4 countries are ‘hopelessly’ beh<strong>in</strong>d <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>irstriv<strong>in</strong>g towards <strong>in</strong>novation <strong>and</strong> competitiveness. Firstly, s<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>the</strong>y came out of <strong>the</strong> severe economiccrises that afflicted most C<strong>and</strong>idate Countries <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> early 1990s, <strong>the</strong> B4 have experienced averageeconomic growth rates that are significantly higher than those of <strong>the</strong> Nordic countries, <strong>the</strong> EU or <strong>the</strong>OECD, for that matter (see Table 5). 87The actual percentages for Latvia <strong>and</strong> Lithuania might <strong>in</strong> reality be slightly higher than listed here, due to <strong>the</strong> fact that, <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> case of Latvia, <strong>the</strong> bus<strong>in</strong>essenterprise sector is not fully covered, while <strong>in</strong> Lithuania defence R&D is not <strong>in</strong>cluded (OECD (2003), STI Scoreboard, p.66). However, <strong>the</strong>se considerationsdo not <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>the</strong> total R&D expenditure shares for <strong>the</strong>se countries significantly to disprove <strong>the</strong> conclusions drawn <strong>in</strong> this analysis.8However, this observation is moderated by <strong>the</strong> fact that GDP <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> B4 grew from very low <strong>in</strong>itial levels.21

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!