Global Industry and Economy Forum, 2013 Seoul, Korea · 2013. 7. 2. · Vencap E Leverantör B...
Transcript of Global Industry and Economy Forum, 2013 Seoul, Korea · 2013. 7. 2. · Vencap E Leverantör B...
Global Industry and Economy Forum, 2013
Seoul, Korea
“Sweden at the innovation frontier – Assessing Performance and Challenges in a Disruptive World”
Enrico Deiaco
Swedish Agency for Growth Policy Analysis
0
5 000
10 000
15 000
20 000
25 000
30 000
35 000
40 000
45 000
50 000
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Countries that have surpassed Sweden in terms of prosperity: 1970s: Canada, Iceland, Norway 1980s: Austria, Denmark 1990s: Australia, Ireland
Countries that Sweden has surpassed in terms of prosperity: 2000s: Germany, Denmark, Ireland, Canada, Iceland
United States
Sweden
EU-15
Long-Term Trends in Prosperity
Ketels, 2011
4
Down and up!
TFP-rates 1993-2012
Soruce: Conference Board Total Economy Database, own calculations
Per cent units, averages
Major institutional changes since the economic crise of 1991-1993
– Foreign ownership of Swedish stocks – Tax reform ”tax should be neutral to investments/arbitrage”
• Lower marginal tax rates and lower company tax rate
– Pension reform, pension coupled to growth and lifetime income – Joining the European Union (1995) – Independent central bank(1997) – Budget ceilings and public savings target – Der/reregulation of domestic markets: air carriers, electricity, and
telecommunications, – Publicly financed services opened for private initatives (2008 2009): – Primary health care, schools, pharmacies, elderly care – Autnomous universities (2010)
Human resources New doctorate graduates per 1000 population aged 25-34 1 Percentage population aged 30-34 having completed tertiary education 5 Percentage youth aged 20-24 having attained at least upper secondary level education 9
Open, excellent and attractive research system International scientific co-publications per million population 4 Scientific publications among top 10% most cited publications worldwide 6 Non-EU doctorate students as % of all doctorate students 8
Finance and support Public R&D expenditures (% of GDP) 3
VC (% of GDP) 2
Firm investments Business R&D expenditures (% of GDP) 1 Non-R&D innovation expenditures (% of turnover) 18
Linkages & entrepreneurship SMEs innovating in-house (% of SMEs) 8 Innovative SMEs collaborating with others (% of SMEs) 6 Public-private co-publications per million population 4
Intellectual assets PCT patents pplications per billion GDP 1 PCT patent applications in societal challenges per billion GDP 1 Community trademarks per billion GDP 9
Community designs per billion GDP 7
Innovators
SMEs introducing product or process innovations (% of SMEs) 9
SMEs introducing product or process innovations (% of SMEs) 16
Economic effects
Employment in knowledge -intensive activities (% of workforce) 5
Medium-tech and high-tech exports (% of total exports) 12 Knowledge-intensive services exports (% of total service exports) 12 New-to-market and new-to-firm sales (% of turnover) 30 Licence and patent revenues from abroad (% of GDP) 4
Innovation Performance Sweden’s Rank among European countries
Enablers Firm Activities Outputs
Note: Coloring indicates relative strengths and weaknesses Source: Innovation Union Scoreboard (2012), Ketels 2011
Macro
Political Institutions
Rule of Law
Human Development
Context for Strategy and Rivalry
Related and Supporting Industries
Demand Conditions
Factor Input Conditions
Micro
Capital
Comm. Skills Innov.
Admin.
Social Infra- structure and Pol.
Institutions
Macroeconomic Policy
Business Environment
Quality
Company Sophistication
Source: Unpublished data from the Global Competitiveness Report (2011), Ketels, 2011.
“Competitiveness” Profile of Sweden 2011
Logistic.
<5
5-8
9-11
12-15
>15
Significant advantage
Moderate advantage
Neutral
Moderate disadvantage
Significant disadvantage
Global Rank
Ideas IP Incubator Exit Growth and employment
The dominant model of policy intervention in Europe
Policy logic: 1. 70s and 80s: ”Financial gap” (Incubators, Venture capital and IP-rights) 2. 80s and 90s: ”Knowledge gap”(Awareness, entreprenuership training)
…and researches (in Sweden)have become more interested to commercialize?
Källa: McKelvey, Magnusson m.fl, 2009
We (in Europe) are not so bad compared to the US…and depends how we count,
Patents owned by universities and academic patents assigned to companies
Source: Lissoni et.al. 2009
Swedish data:
• 20% of Swedish NTBFs are spin-outs from universities. That is 3% of all new companies (high figure in OECD)
• Most Swedish spin-outs have more than 25 employees after 15 years of operation,
• They grow slowly the first ten years but double growth the following 5 years
•500 Start-ups per year • 400-500 patent applications per year • 250 granted patents per year • 80-90 licences per year • 60-70 sold patents per year
University commercialization in Sweden, 2006
Intrapreneurs
0 2 4 6 8
10 12 14 16 18
Active and leading as intrapreneur in past three years, % of adult population 2011
Source: Global Entrepreneurship Monitor
Understand your Industrial Footprint
Source: Giertz,2009
Modes for industry collaboration can be described along two main dimensions
What activities are relevant for collaboration?
To what extent are you willing to engage in long-term commitments? Project based
Mode of collaboration Long-term
Educ
atio
n on
ly
Sco
pe
of c
olla
bor
atio
n
Educ
atio
n an
d re
sear
ch
A. Recruiters of engineers
C. Education builders
B. Technology champions
D. Strategic partners
Companies requiring skilled engineers in their core operations but without need for cutting edge research
Industry players with broader interest in improving quality of Swedish engineers
Industries where innovation of cutting edge is core to the business model
Larger corporates with broad R&D portfolios, with critical size to engage in long-term collaboration
Creative destruction in Sweden
Giertz, 2010
Entry and exit 1994-2008: 300 000 jobs lost and 550 000 created, mainly in services Increase in small and medium sized companies and small and medium sized working places in large companies
Capability and opportunity
Source: Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2011
Market innovative enterprises
Source: Eurostat CIS database
Share in % of population enterprises 2010, total and for size-groups (emp)
0 5
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Denmark Germany Finland Netherlands United Kingdom
Sweden
Total 10-49 50-249 250-
Summarizing
• Reform bites – and institutional quality determine performance at the innovation frontier
• Beware of best practice (sometimes)
• Fostering creativity through networks – allow experimentation!
Summary Index of Innovation
Source: EU Innovation Union 2013 Dashboard
Som basic facts about Sweden • Size: 450,295 km2
• Population: 9,5 • GDP/capita: 36 502 • Public Debt: 41,9 • Inflation: nov 2011: 2,8% • Unemployment: 6,7% • Proportion higher educated: 33% • Sweden is a constitutional monarchy
Trademarks with a Swedish history
*
* *
*
*On Thomson Reuters list on 100 leading innovator companies 2011
* *
Older ones….
Newer ones….
GDP/hour $ PPP 2005
Source: Conference Board, Total Economy Database
United States Japan
Germany
UK
France
Canada
South Korea Switzerland
Italy
Sweden Netherlands
Australia
Israel
Belgium
Austria
Finland
Denmark
Spain
Norway
Hungary
New Zealand Ireland
Mexico 0
50
100
150
200
250
300
-5% -3% -1% 1% 3% 5% 7% 9%
Average U.S. utility patents per 1 million population, 2007-2009
Innovative Output Selected OECD Countries, 1999 to 2009
CAGR of US-registered patents, 1999 to 2009
But less succesful in spinning out new companies – ”effectiveness not demonstrated, signals confusing”
European data
• ”In the UK there are over 2900 of these companies that have been in business”.
• ”After seven years of operational years these new firms comprise, on average, 18,5 employees, revenues of 250 000 pounds and a 36% likelihood of surviving beyond ten years”
• Despite spending of over 2,5 million pounds, they are responsible for only 40 000 jobs. They don´t become the new Microsoft. They just stay micro”.
Swedish data:
• 20% of Swedish NTBFs are spin-outs from universities. That is 3% of all new companies (high figure in OECD)
• Most Swedish spin-outs have more than 25 employees after 15 years of operation,
• They grow slowly the first ten years but double growth the following 5 yeras
ÅÅÅÅ-MM-DD
Source: Clarysse 2009, Lindholm Dahlstrand 2009
Employment by Cluster Sweden, 2000-2008
Employment by Cluster Sweden, 2000-2008
Swed
en’s
EU
em
ploy
men
t sha
re, 2
008
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
Total employees, 2008: Change in LQ (fixed country sample), 2000 - 2008
Paper products
Information Technology Automotive
Heavy Machinery Analytical Instruments
Telecom products
Business Services
Metal Manufacturing
Medical Devices
Lightning and Electrical Products
Production Technology
Transportation and Logistics Construction Entertainment Products
Farming and animal husbandry
Oil and Gas
Absolute Job Gains Absolute Job Losses
Processed Food Pharmaceuticals
Aerospace
Source: European Cluster Observatory (2012), Ketels analysis.
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
Creative destruction
Var i systemet skall man satsa för att FoU skall få genomslag?
Vencap E
Leverantör B
Universitet D
Företag A
Startup C Myndighet F
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
Sweden Export Market share: Electronics industry Global value change and innovation networks
Employment by Cluster Sweden, 2000-2008
Employment by Cluster Sweden, 2000-2008
Swed
en’s
EU
em
ploy
men
t sha
re, 2
008
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
Total employees, 2008: Change in LQ (fixed country sample), 2000 - 2008
Paper products
Information Technology Automotive
Heavy Machinery Analytical Instruments
Telecom products
Business Services
Metal Manufacturing
Medical Devices
Lightning and Electrical Products
Production Technology
Transportation and Logistics Construction Entertainment Products
Farming and animal husbandry
Oil and Gas
Absolute Job Gains Absolute Job Losses
Processed Food Pharmaceuticals
Aerospace
Source: European Cluster Observatory (2012), Ketels analysis.
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
Putting innovation on the agenda
Strategy/report Responsible Description/ objective
National innovation strategy (2012)
Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and Communication
Aim to contribute to a climate with the best possible conditions for innovation in Sweden with year 2020 in sight.
OECD review of innovation policy – Sweden (2012)
Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and Communication
Analyses the key elements, relationships and dynamics that drive the Swedish innovation system and the opportunities to enhance it through government policy
Research and innovation, Government bill (2012)
Ministry of Education and Research
Aim to promote; continued freedom for universities, increase research quality, initiatives for society and business, and increased utilisation of research.
ICT for everyone – A digital agenda for Sweden
Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and Communication
Sweden is a prominent ICT nation but as ICT spans many policy areas this agenda aim to highlight ICT as enabler in to attain policy goals (e.g. regional growth, green growth).
Swedish strategy for increased service innovation (2010)
Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and Communication
The strategy provides a better understanding of service innovation – what it is, what role it plays in the economy. It also highlights the need to adapt public support structures.
VINNOVA budget on strategic areas (million SEK)
Overview of policy instruments Name of policy instrument
Instrument character Supply/ Demand oriented
Targeted/non-targeted
Strategic innovation areas
Large programmes with multiple actors in a few selected areas of great importance to Sweden
Supply Non-targeted
Challenge- driven innovation
Target four societal challenge; Information society 3.0, Sustainable Attractive Cities, Future Healthcare and Competitive Production
Demand Non-targeted
Manufacturing in continuous change
Sector target focusing on new materials, green industry, ICT enabled processes and continuous change
Supply Targeted
Innovations in the service society
Call focusing on value creation in collaboration between producer and customer
Supply Non-targeted
Innovative procurement
Aim to promote and develop the use of innovative procurement in the public sector
Demand Targeted
The blurring frontier – the case of Sweden
• New evidence suggests that countries with a diversified private sector covering both service and manufacturing sectors where more resilient during the global financial crisis – (Camanho da Costa Neto, Romeu, 2011)
Strong manufacturing
sector Strong service
sector
About 60 % of GDP
About 30 % of total export
KIS is the fastest
growing in the economy
service proportion of profits in manufacturing firms is
increasing
Expansion of service-based activities throughout the
entire lifecycle of physical products
“Servitise” to anchor a strong manufacturing base
Transformation from traditional industry towards the integration of products and services
Maintenance and financial services (e.g. service contracts, rental, insurance)
Relationship Transactional
Customer process oriented
Product oriented
Product related products and services (e.g. spare parts, remanufacturing)
Professional solutions and services (e.g. training, safety and security, )
Operational services (e.g. managing operations, aero services, outsourcing services)
The ”servitisation” barriers
• Barriers: – Gaps between the perceived
possibilities and what the companies manage to deliver in terms of new services
– New industrial services seldom deliver profitable growth
– Existing business models fail to ease the transition from a goods to services
– Existing organizational practices lack market orientation
– Service innovation is not part of the corporate strategy
– Lack of service innovation skills
Source : Interview based survey of 60 member companies to the Swedish employers' organisation for engineering companies in collaboration with the Foundation Marketing Technology Centre (MTC)
Growing profit through service
business
Steep learning curve
Sweden’s trade development
Export goods
Export services
Source: Growth Analysis wp pm 2010:15
Billions SEK 2000 prices
Renewal: High growth enterprises
0 5 10 15
Norway
Italy
Finland
New Zeeland
Netherlands
Spain
Denmark
Sweden
USA
Revenue
Employment
Soruce: OECD and Eurostat, data of 2007
Per cent
Investment in intangibles - important productivity driver
0
50
100
150
200
250
Intangibles Tangibles
Manufacturing Services
Source: Growth Analysis
Sweden 2006 billion SEK
IUS Summary Innovation Index
… decreasing PISA results
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40Scale point change
Science (2006 and 2009) Mathematics (2003 and 2009) Reading (2000 and 2009)
Source: OECD (2010), PISA 2009 at a Glance, OECD, Paris.
Change in PISA performance, 2009
Proportion of citations among the 10% most cited publications
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1986
19
87
1988
19
89
1990
19
91
1992
19
93
1994
19
95
1996
19
97
1998
19
99
2000
20
01
2002
20
03
2004
20
05
2006
Switzerland
Netherlands
Denmark
Sweden
44
Figur 3.2 Utgifter för FoU som andel av BNP år 2007, fördelat på finansiering från stat och näringsliv (i procent)
R&D intensity is high but…
Swedish business sector R&D
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
2009 prices Source: Statistics Sweden
Technological specialisation is shifting
Revealed technological advantage, 1997-99 and 2007-09 Index based on patent applications filed under the PCT
Source: OECD STI Scoreboard 2011 based on OECD, Patent Database, May 2011.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5Index ICT
0.00.51.01.52.02.53.0
Index Biotechnologies
0.00.51.01.52.02.53.0Index Nanotechnologies
Swedish Challenges
Investment in intangibles - important productivity driver
0
50
100
150
200
250
Intangibles Tangibles
Manufacturing Services
Source: Growth Analysis
Sweden 2006 billion SEK
Innovative SME
Source: Eurostat CIS database Note: Eurostat definition of innovative SME
Share of population SME
New entrpreneurship formation
Total Entrepreneurship Activity 2011 as % of population
Source: Global Entrepreneurship Monitor
Advice for universities • ”Adopt a strategic approach (make choices on
institutional goals, allocation, technology-emphasis, patent strategies and modes of transfer)”
• ”Adopt a mixture of licensing, start-ups, sponsored research and other tech. transf. modes (NB: choices require different resources and capabilities)
• ”Different types types of spin-off in different disciplines may have different business models”
• Focus on developing critical mass of world class research in more focused areas to attract industrial partners
KäKälla: Clarysse, 2008, Siegel, 2008, Wright 2009, Litan m.fl., 2006, Salter 2009
Specialization in manufacturing
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Denmark
Sweden
Austria
Finland
Germany
Netherlands
Switzerland
United Kingdom
1995
2009
Källa: OECD
Number of sectors with Revealed Comparative Advantage
Advice for government
- ”Think of beyond licensing and incubators” – The importance
of faculty - ”Integrate third-stream activities into decision-making
structure of the universities” - ”Think Strategic and long term: ”scrap short-term schemes…” - ”Adopt a systemic innovation policy approach where spin-
off creation is viewed as a process from the lab to the market…with public intervention covering each stage in order to address systemic failures”
Källa: Clarysse, 2008, Siegel, 2008, Wright 2009, Litan m.fl., 2006, Salter 2009