Bench Marking 2001

7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001

1/77

Towards a European Research Area

Key Figures 2001

Special edition

Indicators for benchmarking of national research policies

E u r o p e a n C o m m i s s i o n

Research

CONTENTS


2/77

Towards a European Research Area

Key Figures 2001

Special editionIndicators for benchmarking of national resea


3/77

Published by theEUROPEAN COMMISSION

Research Directorate General

B-1049 BRUSSELS

LEGAL NOTICE

Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Cis responsible for the use which might be made of the following inform

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Philippe Busquin, Member of the Commissionresponsible for research

Research DG - Unit for Competitiveness, Economic Analysis and Ind

Contact: Ms Fotini Chiou (Research DG)Address: rue de la Loi, 200.Wetstraat - 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

Tel. (32-2) 296 90 26; fax (32-2) 296 28 40

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available onIt can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu.in

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communit


4/77


5/77


6/77


7/77


8/77


9/77

that exist. Privately collected data were only used when there wasno official source available for all Members States (e.g. venture

capital). It should be emphasised that without the data producedby the national and international statistical agencies this bench-marking exercise could not take place.

In order to ensure that the best possible data were used for thiswork, a two step approach was employed. First, the indicatorswere collected for each country from harmonised international

databases at Eurostat and the OECD. Then these indicators weresent to the Member States statistical services (via the High LevelGroup on Benchmarking) for validation and completion. This in-volved checking that the data were correct, the addition of any re-vised data not yet available in international databases, and the in-clusion where possible of estimates for the most recent years.

All contacts with Member States statistical services have beenmanaged by Eurostat, including the receipt and checking of data,

as well as various discussiontion Statistics Working Party

This is a first attempt at usinarea, and it is important to for the future. It is possible tout during the benchmarkinindicators could emerge.

The development of the five rection. This work will be uforce, involving representativfices, which will explore theindicators, which include mand mobility, all of which aEuropean Research Area.

introduction


10/77


11/77


12/77

theme 1: human resources in r&d and attractiveness of s&t professions

Figure 1.1.2. Total resgrowth (%), 1995

1.00

1.22

2.57

2.66

2.893.96

4.59

4.66

4.71

6.21

6.29

6.79

7.61

7.86

Figure 1.1.1. Total researchers (FTE) per 000 workforce,latest available year (1)

Austria

Portugal

Italy (3)

Spain

NetherlandsIreland

EU (2)

United Kingdom

Germany

Belgium

France

Denmark

US

Sweden

Japan (3)

Finland

3.27

3.33

3.77

5.05

5.12

5.28

5.54

6.07

6.11

6.14

6.46

8.44

9.26

8.08

10.62

4.86


13/77

Questions arising from the analysis of the indicator

It would be interesting to examine the following questions:

s How have Finland and Sweden achieved such a high proportionof researchers in their workforce?

s What are the factors and policies behind Irelands rapid increasein numbers of researchers (what is the role or focused policiesand what is the role of increasing total employment, as well asthe catching-up growth observed in Portugal, Spain and Greece?

s What government policy measures are used in Member States toattract young graduates to R&D professions?

s What are the differences between countries in terms of the im-portance of the public sector as an employer of researchers, andwhat policies are used to stimulate such employment?

s What are the differences between the public sector and industryin terms of the supply of and demand for researchers?

s What will be the effects of the ageing population on the futurestock of researchers?

s What are trends in numbers of researchers by sex? This questionis being tackled by the Member States in the Helsinki Group

f l l d

Some comments on int

The number of research scien

current use of human resouclude technicians and other the supply of highly qualifiedbe unemployed, or employed

To give a more accurate estsented here are in full-time eof researchers. This allowworking, etc.

Definitions and sources

Researchers are defined as t

and engineers in a country (F5.4.2.2) expressed in full-tim

Source: OECD MSTI, Membtep).

Total workforce is defined a

l



14/77

Indicator: Number otechnology PhDs in

population in the co

What does this indicato

In the new knowledge based ity human resources is essent

knowledge. New PhD graduathe highly qualified output of will be of crucial importance

Analysis of national per

The European Union has sli

sand 25-34 year olds (0.55) tmore than Japan (0.24).

Sweden, Finland, Germany tions of new S&T PhDs (Fig

The catching up of Spain and


Figure 1.1.3. Total researchers (FTE)

per 000 workforce and R&D intensity,1998 (1)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Total researchers (FTE) per 000 workforce

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Source: DG ResearchData: Eurostat, Member States, OECD, USA (NSF), Japan (Nistep)Notes: (1) P: 2000; D,E: 1999; B,EL,IRL,IT,FIN,S,US: 1997.

(2) L data are not included in the EU average. (3) see annex.

S

FINJP (3)

D

DKF

BUK

NL

EU (2)

IRL

EI (3)

PEL

US

R&Din

tensity(%)

A


15/77


Figure 1.2.2. New science 19

-7.62

-7.19

-5.25

-4.51

-1.61

-0.15

0.37

0.63

0.74

2.8

-3.43

Figure 1.2.1. Total new Science and Technology PhDs per 000population aged 25 to 34 years, latest available year (1)

It l (3)

Japan

Belgium

US

Ireland

Austria

France

Finland

0 17

0.23

0.24

0.35

0.36

0.43

0.47

0.55

0.56

0.56

0.61

0.63

0.71

0.75

0.97

1.17

United Kingdom

Netherlands

Germany

EU (2)

Spain

Denmark

Sweden

Portugal


16/77


17/77


18/77

and - particularly - in Japan because of differences in the definitionof SMEs. Such problems should be solved at a later stage.

Theme 2 about public and private investment in R&D, there-fore, focuses on knowledge creation through various types ofR&D activities and their financing either in the public or busi-ness sector and by various actors. The following indicators havebeen selected:

s

Total research and development expenditure in relation to GDP,s Research and development expenditure financed by industry in

relation to industrial output,

s Share of the annual government budget allocation to research,

s

Share of SMEs in publicly funded R&D executed by the businesssector,

s Volume of venture capital investment in early stages (seed andstart-up) in relation to GDP.

Indicator: Total reseexpenditure in relat

What does this indicato

The share of R&D expenditutive efforts to create new knothe existing knowledge bases

sector. R&D expenditure reeconomic growth in a knowstrong dynamics of R&D ingrowth dynamics of a count


R&D intensity was higher iAverage annual growth (19R&D spending (Figure 2.1higher for these two countrimplies that the gap in the R&

theme 2: public and private investment in r&d


19/77


Figure 2.1.2. R&D expenditu1995 to lat

1.23

2.56

2.81

3.03

3.54

4.13

4.65

5.09

5.31

5.55

5.72

6.07

6.32

Figure 2.1.1. R&D intensity (%), latest available year (1)

Portugal

Spain

Italy (3)

Ireland

Austria

United Kingdom

EU (2)

Netherlands

Belgium

Denmark

France

Germany

US

Japan (3)

FinlandSweden

0.78

0.90

1.04

1.39

1.78

1.87

1.92

1.94

1.98

3.70

3.30

2.91

2.62

2.46

2.172.07


20/77


21/77

Some comments on interpreting the indicator

This is an aggregate indicator which conceals several structural

and qualitative aspects that should be kept in mind when compar-ing across countries. The most important aspects are:

s The level of R&D expenditure will depend partly on the struc-ture of the industrial sectors in a country. If a country is spe-cialised in industries that typically have a high R&D intensitythe value of the indicator will be high.

s The characteristics of the enterprise population will also affectthis indicator because the propensity to invest in R&D differsacross types of firms (such as size or nationality).

s Total R&D indicators include both public and business sectorR&D expenditure. The breakdown of expenditure between

these sectors varies considerably across countries.s This important indicator measures only the investment in R&D,

while performance is also a function of the efficiency of the in-novation system.

s R&D intensity is sensitive to the business cycle. Therefore, theperiod of analysis will affect the value of the indicator.


Figure 2.1.3. R&D intenof R

-2

-1

0

12

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 1

R&D

Source: DG ResearchData: Eurostat, Member StateNotes: (1) D,A,P,FIN: 2000; N

(2) D,A,P,FIN 1995-200(3) L data are not inclu

Averagean

nualgrowthof

R&Dintensity

,1995-99(%)(2)

EL

IRLI (4)E

P


22/77

Indicator: Research and developmentexpenditure financed by industry in relation

to industrial output

What does this indicator tell us?

R&D expenditure financed by industry describes the innovative ef-forts of industry in creating new knowledge and in exploiting exist-ing knowledge bases. These financial resources are directed towardsindustry needs, and tend to be focused on applied and developmentresearch with more direct economic objectives than public research.In addition to public funding of R&D, R&D financed by industryprovides the basis for future industrial competitiveness.

Analysis of national performances

The relative effort made by industry to finance R&D is lower inthe EU than in the USA and Japan (1.4% in EU versus 2.1% inUSA and 2.5% in Japan). Also, the growth rate of R&D financedby industry is considerably higher in the USA than that of EUaverage.


Figure 2.2.1. Industry finanlatest a

2.4

2.08

2.09

2.04

1.68

1.57

1.42

1.27

1.22

1.16

0.93

0.60

0.58

0.20


23/77

The relative effort made byabove the EU average in Bgrowth of this R&D is also hother Member states reach vby industry that are below thAustria and UK) also have while Greece has experiencetugal, Ireland and Spain - whbusiness financed R&D - arabove that of the EU average

Questions arising from

A high level and strong dynadicates strong innovative eff

edge and the utilisation of market forces alone do not nanced by industry for the ecutilises diverse instruments the industry. Consequently, talso the success of the techn


Figure 2.2.2. Industry financed R&D - average annual realgrowth, 1995 to latest available year (1)

United Kingdom

Austria

France

Italy (3)

JapanNetherlands

Germany

EU (2)

Sweden

Belgium

US

Spain

Ireland

Portugal

Denmark

Finland

1.99

2.96

3.48

3.84

4.60

4.73

4.78

4.86

5.72

6.37

8.21

8.52

11.29

12.18

12.48

17.51


24/77


25/77

measures. The government plays an important role in allocatingresources to the production of scientific knowledge and to a less-er extent - in stimulating knowledge creation in the business sector.Government research budget is, therefore, vitally important in sup-porting the transition towards the knowledge-based economy.


In international context, the share of government R&D budget in the

EU is considerably lower than that of the USA and also that of Japan.Similarly, the EUs government R&D budgets grows at a much low-er rate than in Japan and also even if less outstanding in the USA.

The importance that is given to R&D support in government bud-gets varies considerably between the member states. In France andthe Netherlands the role of the government R&D budget is very

high (5.0% and 3.3% respectively) compared to the EU average(2.0%) and to the other European countries. However, in Francethe government R&D budget at an initially high level - registeredan average annual decline during the period 1995-1999. Theshares of government budgets reach in Finland, Germany, UK andSpain values that are around the EU average, but, of these four


Figure 2.3.1. Share of govlatest a

0.77

1.19

1.36

1.36

1.37

1.40

1.47

1.83

1.87

1.90

1.99

2.11

3


26/77


Figure 2.3.3. Government Rlatest a

Figure 2.3.2. Government R&D budget - average annual realgrowth (%), 1995 to latest available year (1)

France

Germany

Austria

United Kingdom

Italy (3)EU (2)

US

Denmark

Netherlands

Ireland

Greece

Finland

Belgium

Japan

Portugal

Spain

-1.52

-0.52

-0.33

-0.27

-0.08

0.61

1.48

1.83

2.68

2.69

2.87

4.99

5.51

6.26

10.85

12.72


27/77


28/77


29/77


Figure 2.4.1. Share of SMEs in publicly funded R&D executedby the business sector (%), latest available year (1)

Italy (na)

Spain

Belgium (na)

France

US

United Kingdom

Germany

Japan

Netherlands

Austria

Finland

Denmark

Portugal

Greece

Ireland

8.33

10.01

10.20

11.35

15.45

35.57

38.61

48.41

51.47

59.88

72.84

83.33

52.73

Figure 2.4.2. Publicly fusector - average annua

available year (1) (onl

-9.51

-8.75

12.15

2.08

10.94

14.03

17.79

19.71

29.

21.28


30/77


31/77



32/77


Figure 2.5.2. Seed and staverage annual real growth

27.60

28.95

44.87

46.88

48.27

48.76

51.88

52.85

59.66

69.99

70.80

82.94

Figure 2.5.1. Seed and start-up venture capital - investmentper 000 GDP, latest available year (1)

Portugal

Italy (3)

Spain

Greece

United KingdomDenmark

EU (2)

France

Ireland

Germany

Finland

Belgium

Netherlands

Japan

Sweden

US

0.08

0.13

0.16

0.17

0.190.24

0.38

0.39

0.46

0.50

0.56

0.90

0.91

0.99

1.08

1.16


33/77



34/77


Venture capital in early stages of a company - i.e. seed and start-up

stages provides financing mainly for the initial business plan, re-search activities, the product development and first marketing. It ispart of total venture capital (= equity investments made for thelaunch, early development or expansion of business). Total venturecapital itself is a part of total private equity capital to enterprisesnot quoted on a stock market. The definitions of seed and start-up

venture capital in the US also include first-stage financing. TheJapanese data for early stage financing are based on two assump-tions: firstly, early stages correspond to the period before estab-

lishment or less than 5 yearondly, the ratio of early stagthe same as that in total new

Sources: European Venture States and National VenturSource for Japan: The Ventu

Gross domestic product (GDtional accounts definition (E

in euros and current prices.Source: Eurostat



35/77

theme 3: scientific and technological productivity


36/77

s Rate of usage of broadband electronic networks for research byR&D laboratories which measures the rate of connectivity anduse of electronic research networks. The underlying assumption

is the larger and better connected electronic research networksare, the more likely is the increase in quantity and quality of sci-entific productivity and the speedy diffusion of scientific andtechnological output.

These two indicators are completely new and are not yet available

from internationally comparable sources (they are therefore notpresented here). Work will need to be launched to develop them inthe future with the help of the statistical offices.

Indicator: Number of patents at the

European and US patent offices per capita

What do these indicators tell us?

An application for a patent indicates that there has been a produc-tion of new knowledge linked to an invention, and more impor-tantly that this knowledge may have potential economic returns.

3

Figure 3.1.1: European

62

65

109

120

126

134

134

135

144

151

185

191

61

54

95

118

120

126

132

125

130130

155

170



37/77

resent key markets for future products which exploit the inven-tions being patented. Secondly, the patenting performance of theEU and the USA varies significantly between the two systems ow-

ing to a home advantage effect: i.e. the US is dominant in the USpatent system because it is their home market, while the Europeancountries are dominant in the European system.


One observes a broadly similar ranking of the European countriesin terms of patenting per capita for both European and US patents.(Figures 3.1.1 and 3.1.3).

While in the European patent system the EU and the US havebroadly the same level of patents per capita (Figure 3.1.1), in theUS patent system the US has a much higher patent intensity than

Europe (Figure 3.1.3)The highest levels of patenting per capita are exhibited by Sweden,Finland and Germany. Some of the Member States have relativelylow levels of patenting per capita (and often extremely low num-bers of patents in absolute terms), but exhibit a clear upwardgrowth trend. (Figures 3.1.2 and 3.1.4).

3

Figure 3.1.2 : Average annu1995 to lat

9.98

10.17

11.08

11.16

11.72

11.72

12.38

12.93

14.79

15.08

16.51

19.86

21.72

23.52



38/77


Some questions of interest th

s To what extent does indulow levels of patenting perother factors may be respo

s In which technology fieldmore specialised?

s

What role do the patentingin these dynamics?

s To what extent is the costtive protection of inventio

s What measures have beencourage SMEs to protect thhow effective have these b

s What measures have beengovernment funded S&T p

Some comments on int

Figure 3.1.3: US patents per million population

Italy (1)

Ireland

France

United Kingdom

EU

Austria

Belgium

Netherlands

DenmarkFinland

Luxembourg

Germany

Sweden

JapanUS

32

43

69

72

73

77

88

93

94

129

132

133

196

249

315

28

35

69

6969

70

80

93

106

135

64

122

171

248

312



39/77

s Some sectors have a mucothers. Consequently, wlevels there is a need to be

trial and technological strus Innovation and invention

captured by patents, sinpatent compared with the

s Not all inventions are pat

gies to protect inventions Two other points should btween the European and US patent data are recorded by tbetween the EPO and USPTOcation date of a patent depen

cific to a particular patent ovantage effect in that, the patent system because it is thcountries will be dominant i

One method which has beenadvantage effect is the use

Figure 3.1.4 : Average annual growth in US patents (%),1995 to latest available year (1)

United Kingdom

Germany

Italy (2)

EU

Netherlands

Austria

Spain

Belgium

Finland

Luxembourg

Sweden

Greece

Denmark

Ireland

Portugal

9.23

9.66

9.83

9.93

10.55

10.62

12.35

12.37

12.45

14.09

15.48

17.84

18.23

19.9737.97


40/77



41/77

Figure 3.2.2: Average annupublications, 1995

7.33

7.26

7.01

6.05

4.92

4.37

4.34

4.26

4.17

3.573.27

3.04

2.92

2.74

1.52

Figure 3.2.1: Number of scientific publications per millionpopulation, latest available year (1)

Sweden

Denmark

Finland

Netherlands

United Kingdom

Belgium

Austria

US

Germany

France

EU

Ireland

Japan

Spain

Italy

Greece

1,431

1,214

1,157

963

949

810

717

708

657

652

613

542

498

471

457

340



42/77

The Scandinavian countries show a remarkable lead measured bytheir number of scientific publications (Figure 3.2.1). This lead is notsomething new. In these countries, the growth rates of the number of

publications are higher than the EU-average since 1995.

Citation data (Figure 3.2.3) show a different picture. Here, thedata has been calculated as the sum of the top 1 % of the publica-tions per field (normalised by field) in a period from 1997-1999.On a country level, achieving more than 1 % of highly cited pa-

pers, is in this respect, performing above the world average. Com-paring the EU-15, US and Japan, the US percentage is with 1.27%only slightly higher than the EU one with 1.20%. Japan is signifi-cantly lower with 0.65% (Figure 3.2.3).

Looking at the total number of the most highly cited papers (Fig-ure 3.2.4), the US and EU-15 produce most of the publications.

Japan is behind the larger publishing countries such as UK, Ger-many, and France, but Italy and the Netherlands also have highlevels. Per capita, Sweden and Denmark have a larger number ofhighly cited publications than the Netherlands, UK and Belgium.The US performs well below 5 Member States and Japan evenmuch lower. (Figure 3.2.5).

Figure 3.2.3: Number of of total number of s

0.80

1.0

1

1



43/77

Figure 3.2.5: Numbeper million popula

42

31

29

27

26

26

18

12

12

8

Figure 3.2.4 : Total number of highly cited papers,

latest available year (1)

United Kingdom

Germany

France

Italy

Netherlands

Sweden

Spain

Belgium

Denmark

Finland

Austria

Ireland

Portugal

Japan

EU

US

3,182

2,407

1,551

1,520

1,005

850

514

489

421

362

257

206

96

82

13,566

11,495


44/77



45/77

raphy. More papers will be produced in the first case, and theseface more competition to be cited then in the latter field. It is there-fore often necessary to normalise these size effects for a citation

analysis, and in order to compare between countries or fields. Thedata for the citation data here have been field normalised, and thetop one percent from each field has been taken for analysis

The denominator used here is million population. One can envis-age other possible denominators, depending on the interpretation

desired (e.g. number of researchers in a country), and these mayproduce significantly different results. It is therefore important tointerpret such ratios carefully according to the issue and the analy-sis in question.


Number of scientific publications: CD-rom version of the databaseof the Institute for Scientific Information ISI, Philadelphia andprocessed by the Centre for Science and Technology Studies CWTS, Leiden University. Full-counting per country, i.e. a publi-cation by authors from two or more countries will be credited as

Figure 3.2.6: Number of of researchers - average

Researchers - a

Source: DG ResearchData: ISI, CWTSNotes: D,E,P: 1995-99; B

(2) L data are no

Scientificpublications

-averageannualgrowth(%)

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

-1 1 3 5

D JPB

I

UKNL

EU (2) S

DK

F

U



46/77

Indicator: Percentage of innovative firmsco-operating with other

firms/universities/public research institutesWhat does this indicator tell us?

This indicator measures cooperation patterns that may contributeto the strengthening of transfers of knowledge and innovation. In-creasingly, innovation relies on the combination of different

sources of knowledge and expertise. Some of this may be externalto the firm, and can be acquired through co-operation with otherfirms, as well as through the exploitation of public research bymeans of links between firms and universities/public research in-stitutes. Such cooperation can help to accelerate the generation ofnew ideas and their diffusion.

Innovation cooperation can have important effects on S&T pro-ductivity in firms, through sharing (and thus reducing) the costs ofR&D, while at the same time improving the quality of new prod-ucts and shortening product life cycles.

Figure 3.4.1. Percentage oother firms, universities o

18.0

19.0

23.0

23.0

25.0

29.0

29.0

30.0

31.0

32.0



47/77

gure 3.4.2), one finds that iland enterprises involved in more than three-quarters of

Germany is the one countstrongly influences due to itimproved products), with levative products.


Notwithstanding some methtween countries (see below),

s Why do innovative firms iels of co-operation. Is this (higher proportion of secto

lent, higher proportion of s What are the public effor

university-industry links, fects of these measures?

s What measures do countri

Figure 3.4.2: Share of turnover linked to new or improvedproducts from innovators by engagement in innovation

co-operation, manufacturing (1996)

EU (1)

Germany

Italy

Austria

Ireland

Spain

Portugal

Netherlands

United Kingdom

Belgium

France

Denmark

Sweden

Finland



48/77

some evidence that the definition of innovation was still not inter-preted in exactly the same way in all countries.

For example, the term technological innovation gave rise to dif-ferent interpretations in different countries (the term was not usedby Germany due to possible ambiguities). Some of the variationsin the percentage of innovative firms per country may be due inpart to this problem.

It has been found that co-operation tends to be significantly high-

er for large firms than for small ones, and is stronger in particularsectors, hence a countrys industrial structure will have an effectupon the size of this indicator.

There were also significant variations between countries in the re-sponse rate to the CIS2 questionnaire. However, where non-re-sponse was below 70% of the active enterprises in the sample, a

non-response analysis was performed, and the results of this analy-sis were taken into account to adjust the weighting factors used toproduce grossed-up figures for the whole population.

Nevertheless, this survey represents the most robust and harmonisedsource of data on innovation in Europe that currently exists.


The indicator is defined as th

the manufacturing sector thpetitors, clients or customeror with universities or othergovernment or private non-p

An innovative firm is definelogically new or improved ptechnologically new or impronew to the enterprise, but dthe enterprises market.

Innovation cooperation is dR&D and other innovation

does not necessarily imply commercial benefit from work, where there is no actcooperation.

(These definitions are in accnovation Survey and OECD/


49/77

theme 4: the impact of r&d on economic competitiveness and employment


50/77

s Growth in a countrys world market share of exports of high-tech products is also an indicator of specialisation, but here inthe production and export of products with a high knowledge

content.

Indicator: Growth rate of labour productivity

What does this indicator tell us?

Labour productivity is an indicator that measures the value addedcreated by one unit of labour (here one hour of average workingtime). It is clearly associated with the level of technology across alleconomic activities and to the relative share of activities in high

and low productivity sectors. However, it also depends upon thecapacity to absorb new technology, and in particular upon theavailability of highly qualified workers able to exploit the benefitsof technological progress. High growth rates of labour productiv-ity require prior innovative investment and are crucial for enhanc-ing competitiveness and social welfare.

Figure 4.1.1. Labour pro

in PPS, late

25.5

29.1

29.3

30.1

31.4

32.4

32.7

33.0

33.9

34.5

34.

3

35.



51/77

In the European Union, Luxembourg has the highest level (nearlytwice the average EU level) and the second highest growth rate oflabour productivity.

The labour productivity levels of many other European coun-tries follow with great distance to Luxembourg but are stillabove (Figure 4.1.1) the EU average (Belgium, Netherlands,Italy, France, Denmark, Ireland, Austria and Germany). Also theannual average growth rate is lower than the EU average for

only two of these countries, Italy and the Netherlands. The high-est rate of growth of labour productivity is found in Ireland(4.2%), just before Luxembourg. For Austria it is also quite high(2.6%). (Figure 4.1.2).

Just below the European Union average level we find Finland,

Sweden, United Kingdom, while the lower levels of labour pro-ductivity are found in the Mediterranean countries (Portugal,Greece and to a lesser extent Spain). As the annual averagegrowth rates of their labour productivity are rather high, Portu-gal and Greece are on a catching-up trajectory. However, thisis not the case for Spain where the rhythm of productivitygrowth is rather slow The United Kingdoms level of productiv-

Figure 4.1.2. Labour proaverage annual real growth

0.69

0.73

0.89

1.07

1.31

1.46

1.50

1.72

1.77

2.04

2.5

2.5

2


52/77


53/77



54/77

employment in high-tech indabove the EU average. AnothItaly, Ireland, France, Finlan

ues that are under the EU avand Spain lie further down wPortugal have the lowest shadustries is growing faster th4.2.4), i.e. the shares are inFinland and Spain the grow

dustries is relatively high. Halso risen strongly over the sconstant.

In some large countries (UKdustries is comparable to grtively low levels of averaggrowth of total employmengrowth of employment in thtries is positive since 1995. um high-tech industries is ment since 1995.

Figure 4.2.1. Share of value added of high- and mediumhigh-tech industries in total output (%), latest available year (1)

(only available for eleven countries)

Luxembourg (na)

Italy (na)

Ireland (na)

Spain

Greece (na)

Portugal

Netherlands

France

Austria

Denmark

Belgium

US

Finland

Japan

Germany

4.21

5.34

5.63

6.86

7.04

7.17

8.08

8.89

10.42

10.95

5.44



55/77

long term evolution of thenecessary. This may partlgrowth rates.

s High- and medium high-tedriving sectors of the ecoskills, excellence and comptors in the countries increahave been applied and whtechnology mastery?

s What are the factors behinNetherlands and Belgium tries?

s What are the factors tha

tween countries in laboadded divided by the numhigh-technology industriedifferences in the compotechnology industries , pthe measurement of the nemployee?

Figure 4.2.2. Share of high- and medium high-techemployment in total employment (%), latest available year (1)

Portugal

Netherlands

US

Spain

Austria

Japan

Denmark

Belgium

Finland

FranceIreland

Italy (3)

United Kingdom

EU (2)

Sweden

Germany

3.48

4.66

5.30

5.46

5.65

6.24

6.81

7.22

7.23

7.24

7.31

7.62

7.65

7.71

8.26

10.87



56/77

These indicators only give information on the direct effects on out-put and employment in high- and medium high-tech industries.However, there may be considerable indirect effects on growth and

employment in other sectors of the economy due to dissemination oftechnical progress in other sectors, derived innovations, and substi-tution of new products or services for traditional ones. In some cas-es secondary effects may also create unemployment in other sectors.


In Europe, output in high-tech and medium high-tech industries ismeasured by value added, in euro, in high-tech and medium high-tech industries according to the OECD-high-tech and mediumhigh-tech industries definition (see OECD STI working paper

1997, (OECD/GD(97)216)), which includes: aerospace, comput-ers, office machinery, electronics-communications, pharmaceuti-cals, scientific instruments, motor vehicles, electrical machinery,chemicals, other transport equipment and non-electrical machin-ery, (i.e. NACE Rev. 1 codes: 35.3, 30, 32, 24.4, 33, 34, 31, 24(excl. 24.4), 35.2+35.4+35.5, 29) Source: These data were collect-ed in the Member States and the USA

Employment in high-tech anfined as the number of emplohigh-tech and medium higmember states USA and Jap

Figure 4.2.3: GDP and vhigh tech industries - aver

(only availab

Average a

Source:DG ResearchData: Eurostat, Member StateNote: (1) D,P and US: 1995-9

Average

annualrealgrowthof

value

addedofhigh-and

medium

high-techindustries(%)

-4

-20

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 1

D

JP



57/77

Total output is defined as gross domestic product (GDP) accordingto National Accounts ESA 1995 definition, in national currencyand current prices, converted to Euro and PPS. Source: Eurostat

Indicators: knowled

Share of total output

to growth of output Share of total employ

to growth of employm

What do these indicato

The shares of knowledge intput and total employment inof knowledge intensive actiknowledge-based economy. highly skilled personnel and Some of these activities play

tivity of research activities manufacturing firms and als


Amongst the countries for w

Figure 4.2.4: Total employment and high- and medium high-tech

employment - average annual growth, 1995-99 (1)

Average annual growth of total employment (%)

Source:DG ResearchData: Eurostat, Member States, OECD, Japan(Nistep)Notes: (1) DK,EL,A,EU,US: 1995-98; P: 1998-99.

(2) L,P data are not included in the EU average.

(3) see annex.

Averageannualgrowth

of

high-andmedium

high-techemployment(%)

-4-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

P

EEL

IRL

FI

S

A

JP

FI US

UKEU

DDK

B

NL



58/77

Figure 4.3.2. Share oemployment in total em

rate of growth from

5.55

2.67

2.26

2.22

2.10

2.72

1.66

1.74

0.92

-0.11

2.86

0.10

1.60

1.70

0.55

18.8

21

Figure 4.3.1. share of value added of knowledge intensiveservices in total output: latest available year and averageannual real growth from 1995 to latest available year (1)

(only available for eight countries)

Greece (na)

Spain

Ireland (na)

Italy (na)

Luxembourg (na)

Sweden (na)

United Kingdom (na)

Japan (na)

Portugal

Finland (na)

France

Austria

Denmark

EU (na)

Netherlands

Germany

Belgium

12.55

-0.04

-0.61

-1.59

1.97

1.38

0.81

10.68

31.71

33.54

35.93

39.52

42.24

46.64

0.0932.88


59/77


60/77

Whil h l i



61/77

While technology receipts aritiveness in selling its intantechnology can also have an

hancing the technological pochasing country (especially technology). If one considerand imports (Figure 4.4.3), also Finland, Germany and Stechnology.


Some important questions fo

s What are the factors explaceipts recorded by Belgium

s

What are the effects on teand regulatory policies? Wbuy and sell ?

s How do the transactions nology receipts and payme

s How can government help

Figure 4.4.1. Technology balance of payments receiptsas % of GDP,latest available year (1)

0.03

0.08

0.14

0.18

0.19

0.270.39

0.45

0.64

1.12

1.29

2.05

Luxembourg (na)

Ireland (na)

Greece (na)

Denmark (na)

Spain

Finland

Italy (2)

France

Japan

PortugalUS

United Kingdom

Germany

Austria

Netherlands

Belgium



62/77

Figure 4.4.3. Tech(exports - imports) as %

-0.44

-0.24

-0.18

-0.14

-0.10

-0.06-0.04

Figure 4.4.2. Technology balance of payments receipts - averageannual real growth (%), 1995 to latest available year (1)

Ireland (na)

Greece (na)

Denmark (na)

Spain

Finland

Italy (2)

France

Japan

US

United Kingdom

Germany

Austria

Netherlands

Belgium

38.12

29.16

14.89

14.47

13.25

10.92

10.81

9.91

7.65

5.12

3.03

Portugal16.86


63/77



64/77

Figure 4.5.2. World marproducts - average an

availa

-6.52

-3.99

-1.27

-0.46

-0.01

0.07

0.66

0.89

0.91

2.62

3.92

4.7

6

6

Figure 4.5.1. World market share of exports of high-techproducts (%), latest available year (1), (2)

Spain

Denmark

Austria

Finland

Sweden

Belgium and Luxembourg

Italy

Ireland

Netherlands

United Kingdom

Germany

France

Japan

USEU (including intra-EU trade)

0.59

0.66

0.74

0.83

1.44

1.44

1.64

2.67

4.54

6.31

7.32

7.39

9.95

19.75

35.73


Fi 4 5 4 W ld


65/77

Figure 4.5.3. World market share of exports of high-techproducts excluding intra-EU trade (%), latest available year (1)

Source: DG ResearchD t C t C t d

18.49

25.04

12.62

0

5

10

15

20

25

EU (2) US Japan

Figure 4.5.4. World mar

products excluding igrowth (%), 1995

Source: DG Research

0.45

-10

-8-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

EU (2)


66/77

to calculate high tech exports for the Structural Indicators exercise) 2 Computers-office machin



67/77

to calculate high tech exports for the Structural Indicators exercise).The advantage of this method is that Comext gives much more up-to-date and accurate data for the EU countries, while Comtrade is

the only source for the other countries. However, these two sourcesuse slightly different definitions and methodologies for recordingtrade, which may affect comparability in some cases.

The introduction of the single market on 1 January 1993 led to theabolition of customs formalities between the Member States,which had served as the traditional source of trade statistics. In or-der to continue to monitor intra-EU trade, a new collection systemwas introduced known as INTRASTAT, which involves statisticaldeclarations sent directly by businesses to the competent nationalauthorities, as well as a system of thresholds abolishing all statisti-cal obligations for almost two thirds of businesses. INTRASTATrequires various adjustments to be made to data in order to correct

for the under-estimation of certain flows. For this and other rea-sons, Eurostat advises that figures on intra-EU trade should be in-terpreted with caution. They are also subject to frequent revision.


2. Computers office machin[75113+75131+75132+7

3. Electronics-telecommuni[76381+76383+(764-76476499)+7722+77261+777763+7764+7768+89879

4. Pharmacy [5413+5415+5

5. Scientific instruments[774+8711+8713+8714+8742)+88111+88121+88

6. Electrical machinery[77862+77863+77864+7

7. Chemistry [52222+52223

8. Non-electrical machinery[71489+71499+71871+773144+73151+73153+7373733+73735

9 Armament [891 ]

ANNEX 1: Notes concerning the data (4) Italy: The data have no

Annex 1: notes concerning the data


68/77

ANNEX 1: Notes concerning the data

GENERAL NOTES(1) Country codes

B: BelgiumDK: DenmarkD: Germany

EL: GreeceE: SpainF: FranceIRL: IrelandI: ItalyL: Luxembourg

NL: NetherlandsA: AustriaP: PortugalFIN: FinlandS: SwedenUK: United Kingdom

(4) Italy: The data have noItaly.

(5) The average annual real gwith the exception of labour in PPS at 1995 prices and exctional currency was carried ostat) and price indices of GDbeginning of April 2001. In thwere provided directly by DG

(6) The average annual rate(year a) and last year (year b

g= (I

b )1

1.I

a

ba

NOTES BY INDICAT

INDICATOR. Number of

INDICATOR. Number of new science and technology (ii) General government ex



69/77

gyPhDs in relation to the population in thecorresponding age group.

(i) All PhD data refer to the ISCED97 definition of science andtechnology PhDs.

(ii) Japan: PhD and population data supplied by Japan.

INDICATOR. Total research and developmentexpenditure in relation to GDP.

(i) Gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GERD) for B (1999), DK(1999), D (2000), F (1999), A (2000), P (2000), FIN (2000) is es-timated or provisional.

(ii) Gross domestic product (GDP) for A (2000), P (2000), FIN(2000) is estimated or provisional.

(iii) Japan: GERD adjusted by OECD.

INDICATOR. Research and development expenditurefinanced by industry in relation to industrial output.

(i) R&D expenditure financed by industry for DK (1999), D (2000),

( ) g(2000), A (2000), P (2000), provisional.

(iii) Japan: General governmaccount budgets and was su(iv) US: The % share of the aresearch was supplied by the

INDICATOR. Share of SM

executed by the busines(i) Publicly funded business s(1997), EL (1997), P (2000) visional.

(ii) Total publicly funded bu

P(2000) is estimated or provINDICATOR. Volume of early stages (seed and s

Total seed and start-up ventuor provisional.Total seed an

INDICATOR. Percentage of innovative firms co- INDICATOR. Share of kn



70/77

goperating with other firms/universities/publicresearch institutes.

Percentage of innovating firms for DK (1996) is estimated or pro-visional.

INDICATOR. High-tech and medium high-techindustries: share of total employment andcontribution to growth of employment.

Employment in high-tech or medium high-tech industries for DK(1998) is estimated or provisional.

total output and contribgrowth of output.

Value added of knowledge (1999) is estimated or provis

INDICATOR. Technologas a proportion of GDP.

Total technology balance oftimated or provisional.


71/77

Annex 2: list of indicators specified the working document from the commission

2. THEME 2: Public and private investment in RTD


72/77

p

INDICATORS

s Total research and development ex-penditure in relation to GDP andbreakdown by source of funding

s Research and development expen-

diture financed by industry in rela-tion to industrial output

s Share of the annual governmentbudget allocated to research

s Share of SMEs in publicly fundedR&D executed by the business sec-tor

s Volume of venture capital invest-

STATUS

Data availableSource: Eurostat/OECD/ MemberStates

Data available

Source: Eurostat/OECD/ MemberStates


Data available (butno regular har-monised statistics)

Data available (but

FURTHER DEVELOPMENTSTO BE EXPLORED

Breakdown of the funding by basic and ap-plied research

Proportion of R&D executed by industry

financed by public funding

Breakdown of research budget by mainpolicy objectives

Allocation of budget to policy support Breakdown of research budget by main

sector (e.g. civil and defence)

Proportion of SMEs (and if possible newSMEs) amongst enterprises conductingresearch activities

Investigate how comparability of data


3. THEME 3: Scientific and technological productivity


73/77

g p y

INDICATORS

s Number of patents at the Europeanand US patent offices per capita

s Number of scientific publicationsand most cited publications percapita

s Number of spin-offs generated byuniversities and research centres

s Percentage of innovative firms co-operating with other firms/univer-

STATUS

Data availableSource: EPO/USPTO

Data availableSource: ScienceCitation Index

New indicator(to be developed)

Data availableSource: Eurostat

FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS

TO BE EXPLORED

Share of patents in high-tech areas Explore other possible scaling factors (e.g.

business R&D expenditure, number ofresearchers)

Breakdown by science domain (examinethe possible inclusion of social sciences andhumanities)

Explore other possible scaling factors (e.g.non-business R&D expenditure, number ofresearchers)

Proportion of joint publications in thenational total

Need to examine methodological issues

Indicators of performance of spin-offs Explore suitable scaling factors (per capita,

GDP, etc.)

Other forms of co-operation between uni-versities and industry


4. THEME 4: Impact of RTD on economic competitiveness and employ


74/77

p p p y

INDICATORS

s Growth rate of labour productivity

s Share of high-tech and medium-

high-tech industries (+ their contri-bution to growth) in total employ-ment and output

s Share of knowledge intensive ser-vices (+ their contribution togrowth) in total employment andoutput

s Technology balance of paymentsreceipts as a proportion of GDP

STATUS


Data available

Source: Eurostat/OECD/ MemberStates


Data available (butnot for all countriesand all years)Source: Eurostat/OECD/ MemberStates

FURTHER DEVELOPMENTSTO BE EXPLORED

Growth in total factor productivity Growth rate of labour productivity in high

tech, medium-tech. and low-tech. compa-nies

Breakdown by sectors (including contribu-

tion of the ICT sector)

Breakdown by individual service sectors

Breakdown by type of transaction (e.g.rights of use of patents, etc.)

Breakdown by intra-EU and extra-EU Investigate how to redefine the indicator

for S&T purposes

European Commision


75/77

Towards a European Research Area - Key Figures 2001 -Special edition: Indicanational research policies

Luxembourg: Office for Publications of the European Communities

2001Key Figures 73 pp.21x14.8 cm.

ISBN 92-894-1183-X

BELGIQUE/BELGI

Jean De Lannoy

Avenue du Roi 202/Koningslaan 202B-1190 Bruxelles/BrusselTl (32 2) 538 43 08

STERREICH

Manzsche Verlags- undUniversittsbuchhandlung GmbH

Kohlmarkt 16A Wi

EESTI

Eesti Kaubandus-Tstuskoda

(EstonianChamberof Commerceand Industry)Toom-Kooli 17EE 10130 Tallinn

Renouf Publishing Co. Ltd

5369 Chemin Canotek Road, Unit 1Ottawa, Ontario K1J 9J3Tel. (1-613) 745 26 65Fax (1-613) 745 76 60E mail order dept@reno fbooks com

Venta Salg Verkauf Pvlseiw Sales Vente Vendita Verkoop Venda Myynti Frsljninghttp://eur-op.eu.int/general/en/s-ad.htm


76/77

Tl. (32-2) 538 43 08Fax (32-2) 538 08 41E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.jean-de-lannoy.be

La librairie europenne/De Europese Boekhandel

Rue de la Loi 244/Wetstraat 244B-1040 Bruxelles/BrusselTl. (32-2) 295 26 39Fax (32-2) 735 08 60E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.libeurop.be

Moniteur belge/Belgisch Staatsblad

Rue de Louvain 40-42/Leuvenseweg 40-42B-1000 Bruxelles/BrusselTl. (32-2) 552 22 11Fax (32-2) 511 01 84E-mail: [email protected]

DANMARK

J. H. Schultz Information A/S

Herstedvang 12

DK-2620 AlbertslundTlf. (45) 43 63 23 00Fax (45) 43 63 19 69E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.schultz.dk

DEUTSCHLAND

Bundesanzeiger Verlag GmbH

VertriebsabteilungAmsterdamer Strae 192D-50735 KlnTel. (49-221) 97 66 80Fax (49-221) 97 66 82 78E-Mail: [email protected]: http://www.bundesanzeiger.de

ELLADA/GREECE

G. C. Eleftheroudakis SA

International BookstorePanepistimiou 17GR-10564 AthinaTel. (30-1) 331 41 80/1/2/3/4/5Fax (30-1) 323 98 21E-mail: [email protected]: [email protected]

ESPAA

Boletn Oficial del Estado

Trafalgar, 27E-28071 MadridT l (34) 915 38 21 11 (lib )

A-1014 WienTel. (43-1) 53 16 11 00Fax (43-1) 53 16 11 67E-Mail: [email protected]: http://www.manz.at

PORTUGAL

Distribuidora de Livros Bertrand Ld.

Grupo Bertrand, SARua das Terras dos Vales, 4-AApartado 60037P-2700 AmadoraTel. (351) 214 95 87 87Fax (351) 214 96 02 55E-mail: [email protected]

Imprensa Nacional-Casa da Moeda, SA

Sector de Publicaes OficiaisRua da Escola Politcnica, 135P-1250-100 Lisboa CodexTel. (351) 213 94 57 00Fax (351) 213 94 57 50E-mail: [email protected]

URL: http://www.incm.pt

SUOMI/FINLAND

Akateeminen Kirjakauppa/Akademiska Bokhandeln

Keskuskatu 1/Centralgatan 1PL/PB 128FIN-00101 Helsinki/HelsingforsP./tfn (358-9) 121 44 18F./fax (358-9) 121 44 35Shkposti: [email protected]: http://www.akateeminen.com

SVERIGE

BTJ AB

Traktorvgen 11-13S-221 82 LundTlf. (46-46) 18 00 00Fax (46-46) 30 79 47E-post: [email protected]: http://www.btj.se

UNITED KINGDOM

The Stationery Office Ltd

Customer ServicesPO Box 29Norwich NR3 1GNTel. (44) 870 60 05-522Fax (44) 870 60 05-533

EE-10130 TallinnTel. (372) 646 02 44Fax (372) 646 02 45E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.koda.ee

HRVATSKA

Mediatrade Ltd

Pavla Hatza 1HR-10000 ZagrebTel. (385-1) 481 94 11Fax (385-1) 481 94 11

MAGYARORSZG

Euro Info Service

Szt. Istvn krt.12II emelet 1/APO Box 1039H-1137 BudapestTel. (36-1) 329 21 70Fax (36-1) 349 20 53E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.euroinfo.hu

MALTA

Miller Distributors Ltd

Malta International AirportPO Box 25Luqa LQA 05Tel. (356) 66 44 88Fax (356) 67 67 99E-mail: [email protected]

POLSKA

Ars Polona

Krakowskie Przedmiescie 7Skr. pocztowa 1001PL-00-950 WarszawaTel. (48-22) 826 12 01Fax (48-22) 826 62 40E-mail: [email protected]

ROMNIA

Euromedia

Str.Dionisie Lupu nr. 65, sector 1RO-70184 BucurestiTel. (40-1) 315 44 03Fax (40-1) 312 96 46E-mail: [email protected]

SLOVAKIA

Centrum VTI SR

E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.renoufbooks.com

EGYPT

The Middle East Observer

41 Sherif Street

CairoTel. (20-2) 392 69 19Fax (20-2) 393 97 32E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.meobserver.com.eg

INDIA

EBIC India

3rd Floor, Y. B. Chavan CentreGen. J. Bhosale Marg.Mumbai 400 021Tel. (91-22) 282 60 64Fax (91-22) 285 45 64E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.ebicindia.com

JAPAN

PSI-Japan

Asahi Sanbancho Plaza #2067-1 Sanbancho, Chiyoda-kuTokyo 102Tel. (81-3) 32 34 69 21Fax (81-3) 32 34 69 15E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.psi-japan.co.jp

MALAYSIA

EBIC Malaysia

Suite 45.02, Level 45Plaza MBf (Letter Box 45)8 Jalan Yap Kwan Seng50450 Kuala LumpurTel. (60-3) 21 62 92 98Fax (60-3) 21 62 61 98E-mail: [email protected]

MXICO

Mundi Prensa Mxico, SA de CV

Ro Pnuco, 141Colonia CuauhtmocMX-06500 Mxico, DFTel. (52-5) 533 56 58Fax (52-5) 514 67 99E-mail: [email protected]

PHILIPPINES

EBIC Philippines

15

LEGAL NOTICE

Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on

behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which may

b d f h f ll i i f i


77/77

KI-38-

01-463-EN-C

OFFICE FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS

OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

L-2985 Luxembourg

be made of the following information.

European Communities, 2001

DG Research

ISBN 92-894-1183-X

9 789289 411837 >

Bench Marking 2001

Documents

Transcript of Bench Marking 2001