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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 7: Relative Strengths and Weaknesses (by country)Country Major relative strengths Major relative weaknessesEstoniaLatviaLithuaniaPoland- Trend for S&E graduates- Trend for business R&D- Trend for EPO hi-tech patents- Trend for Patents- Trend for med/hi-tech manufacturing employment- Trend for business R&D- Trend for EPO patents- Current education- Trend for business R&D- Trend for EPO patents- Trend for education- Trend for EPO patents- Trend for ICT expenditures- Trend for lifelong learning- Current EPO hi-tech patents- Current patents- Current EPO hi-tech patents- Current and trend for USPTO patents- Internet access/use- Trend for med/hi-tech employment- All current patents- Internet access/use- All current patents- Internet access/useSource: EIS, European Commission (2003l)Table 7 presents the relative strengths and weaknesses of the B4 countries. Estonia and Lithuaniaare among the most innovative acceding countries (together with the Czech Republic, Hungary andSlovenia), leading particularly in the areas of science & engineering graduates, population with tertiaryeducation, and innovative SMEs (both in-house and through cooperation). Poland leads accedingcountries in high-tech venture capital and early stage venture capital/GDP indicators. Latvia is amongthe acceding country leaders in participation in lifelong learning and innovation expenditures in bothmanufacturing and services.However, this generally optimistic picture, depicting rapid progress by the B4 countries towardsan innovative and knowledge-based economy, and towards catching up with the EU-15, is marredby the fact that the B4 have failed to increase significantly their comparatively low expenditure onR&D (as measured as a percentage of GDP). Table 8 compares the average annual increase in grossdomestic expenditure on R&D. Of the B4, Estonia has the highest average annual growth rate ofgross domestic expenditure on R&D (measured in current PPP US $) at 7.2% (between 1998 and2000). While this is above both the EU-15 and OECD average, it is however, considerably lowerthan – or just equal to – the average annual increase for a number of EU countries, such as Finland,Ireland, Portugal and Sweden, all countries which already spend a much higher share of GDP onR&D than Estonia. For the B4 to secure a strong national knowledge base, which – even in the age ofglobalisation – is still considered one of the foundations of a strong national innovation system, theywill have to increase their expenditure on R&D, both in the public and private sector, by considerablymore than they have done so far.24
Table 8: Evolution of Gross Domestic Expenditure on R&DAverage annual growth rate %Period coveredEstonia 7.2 1998-2000Latvia 3.4 1995-2000Lithuania 6.5 1996-2000Poland 4.0 1995-2001Finland 11.3 1995-2001Ireland 7.5 1995-2001Germany 3.3 1995-2001Greece 12.0 1995-1999Portugal 10.1 1995-2001Spain 6.5 1995-2001Sweden 7.2 1995-2001EU-15 3.7 1995-2001OECD 4.7 1995-2001Source: OECD (2003)While the indicators presented here generally offer a useful, and needed, tool for assessing andcomparing innovative capacity, it is important to point out that there is still considerable room forimproving these instruments. The difficulty of comparing innovation performance and capacity acrosscountries, and the lack of reliable and comparable data – particularly in the Candidate Countries –, aswell as the need to ensure greater transparency in the collection and aggregation of data, significantlyrestricts the ability to formulate appropriate policy responses (see also Box 3). Thus the EuropeanCommission remarked:A … major issue for policymakers is the lack of available reliable and internationally comparablesurvey data on innovation performance. Few firm conclusions can be reached either in terms ofinternal patterns of innovation or how countries are performing in comparison to their neighboursand future partners in the EU. In the absence of reliable data, policy decisions are more likely to beinfl uenced by pressure groups and political considerations than by well-identified needs of enterprises.(European Commission (2001a, p.78)25
Page 1 and 2: Sylvia Schwaag SergerEmily HanssonC
Page 4 and 5: About the International Organisatio
Page 7: PREFACEAccession to the Single Mark
Page 10 and 11: enterprise development. There are n
Page 12 and 13: BOXESBox 1: The ‘Knowledge-Based
Page 15 and 16: INTRODUCTIONAfter more than 10 year
Page 17 and 18: CHAPTER 1: FROM STABILISATION TO IN
Page 19: increased competitive pressure as B
Page 22 and 23: Box 2: On Innovation and Innovation
Page 24 and 25: Table 5: GDP Growth 1995-2003 in Se
Page 28 and 29: Box 3: The Indicator ProblemExistin
Page 31 and 32: CHAPTER 2:BALTIC SMEs - AGENTS OF F
Page 33 and 34: Table 9: Average Annual Growth of S
Page 35 and 36: Box 4: Overview of Selected Multina
Page 37 and 38: The Role of SMEs in Transitional Ec
Page 39 and 40: e to the potential advantage of the
Page 41 and 42: A common measurement of business ac
Page 43 and 44: Figure 8: Labour Productivity per P
Page 45 and 46: Figure 10: Employment in Med/Hi-tec
Page 47 and 48: Summing up, there are fewer economi
Page 49 and 50: Overall, SMEs tend to lack the fina
Page 51 and 52: Figure 12: Enterprises with Innovat
Page 53 and 54: Figure 14: Proportion of Enterprise
Page 55 and 56: Table 14: Barriers to Innovation fo
Page 57 and 58: Some interesting examples of cluste
Page 59 and 60: CHAPTER 3:POLICIES PROMOTING SMEs A
Page 61 and 62: National governments themselves wil
Page 63 and 64: Institutional StructureIn all of th
Page 65 and 66: EU countries (innovation relay cent
Page 67 and 68: LITHUANIAAgency/OrganisationLithuan
Page 69 and 70: From the private sector, the chambe
Page 71 and 72: On the whole, the B4 have relativel
Page 73 and 74: LITHUANIAProgramme/Policy DocumentI
Page 75 and 76: Table 19: B4 National Rankings of A
Page 77 and 78:
Box 11: Structural Funds to the Can
Page 79 and 80:
Box 12: On SMEs and FinancingIt doe
Page 81 and 82:
examples of evaluations of national
Page 83 and 84:
CHAPTER 4:CHALLENGES AND RECOMMENDA
Page 85 and 86:
General challengesBased on our own
Page 87 and 88:
the above-mentioned channels. 27 On
Page 89 and 90:
the EU average and particularly wit
Page 91 and 92:
RecommendationsBased on the challen
Page 93 and 94:
CHAPTER 5:A VISION OF A NORDIC-BALT
Page 95 and 96:
addition, they are the most advance
Page 97 and 98:
countries. One such sign is the rap
Page 99 and 100:
CONCLUSIONSEU accession will not re
Page 101 and 102:
REFERENCESAlfonso, Antonio, Ludger
Page 103 and 104:
European Commission (2003f), Compre
Page 105 and 106:
Eurostat (2004a), SMEs in the Candi
Page 107 and 108:
Statistical Office of Estonia (2004
Page 109 and 110:
APPENDIX I:Agenda for Working Group
Page 111 and 112:
DAY 2:POLICY SOLUTIONS9:30-10:30 In
Page 113 and 114:
APPENDIX II:Participants in the IKE
Page 115 and 116:
APPENDIX III:Conclusions from the I
Page 117 and 118:
APPENDIX IV:Summary of the Panel se
Page 119 and 120:
Regarding the role of policymaking,
Page 121 and 122:
APPENDIX V:Description of Field Stu
Page 123 and 124:
Mr. Miroslaw MarekMr. Talis Millers
Page 126:
IKED - International Organisation f
show all

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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?