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

the EU average and particularly with internationally leading countries, such as the Nordic countries.With regard to ICT access and usage, Estonia is considerably more advanced than the other B4countries. Latvia’s performance has dramatically improved in a number of areas in recent years. Ofthe four countries, Poland seems to be faced with the largest challenges in this aspect. (For a practicalexample of addressing this issue, see Box 14.)Box 14: Window to the Future initiative in LithuaniaIn May 2002, leading Lithuanian businesses (fixed and mobile telecommunications, banks,and IT companies) came together to form the Window to the Future alliance. The goal was toachieve the same average internet penetration in Lithuanian as in the European Union withinthree years through three fields of activity: broad public access, training on computer usage andinternet, development of electronic content and services relevant to civil society. At the end of2002, the Lithuanian government joined the alliance, agreeing to establish 300 new internetaccess locations and allocate LTL 5.6 million to the project over three years.During 2003, 66 public internet access points were established throughout Lithuania,enabling citizens to spend over 1.500.000 hours on the internet. A free internet trainingcourse is planned for 20.000 people. It is the alliance founders’ goal that the project willprompt closer collaboration between the public and private sectors on the development of theinformation society, and will provide a base for local governmental institutions to act in thisarea, stimulating municipalities to take further steps in developing and refining public internetaccess points according to local needs.Source: Windows to the Future internet site: www.langasiateiti.lt• Insufficiently competitive business environment (competing on cheap products)The basic math and science education is viewed as a major asset in all the B4 countries. The AccedingCountries are catching up to the EU average with approximately 21% of their total populationworking in an S&T occupation or having a tertiary education level, compared to approximately27% in the EU, and with a faster expansion in the number of graduates than in the EU (Eurostat(2003d)).There is an increase in the total number of graduates. On average, however, currently onlyapproximately one half of graduates go on to work in an S&T occupation raising the question ofwhether the scientific base is being leveraged appropriately. Thus, although the B4 have strong,traditional research and science bases, and are catching-up in tertiary graduates, the benefit of this hasnot yet been seen in terms of national competitiveness. There are indications that this is changing,but overall, these countries are still competing on low labour costs and cheap products rather than ontheir ability to design and sell unique products, processes or applications of their own. To some extent,this tendency is reflected in the patterns of FDI flowing into the Candidate Countries. Accordingto Barry, the evidence suggests that “[m]ost current CEE [Central and Eastern European]-boundFDI comes from Europe rather than the US, is market seeking rather than export-oriented, and isrelatively low-tech” (Barry (2002)).87