INNOVATION, EU AND REGIONS: A WAY OUT OF
POVERTY? Project 17: Project Leader: Prf. Dr. rer.pol. Bettina Burger-Menzel
Team composition:MARÍA ANDREA VÁSQUEZ CASTILLO CHRISTINE LESSMANN JUSTINA SAKALYTE IEVA NAUJALYTECRISTINA SALA LIDÓN MARC JUANOLA MONÉ
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Why Germany, Lithuania and Spain?
3. Economic Background
4. Study Case
5. Lithuania’s survey
6. Conclusions
1. Introduction
• Germany, Spain and Lithuania as the EU members
• Role of the innovation in the development of the countries.
• Structural and technological changes and their effects into the economies.
2. Why Germany, Lithuania and Spain?
• Innovation Leaders: Germany
• Catching-up Countries: Lithuania
• Trailing Countries: Spain
2. Why Germany, Lithuania and Spain?
Source: European Innovation Scoreboard 2006
Innovation DimensionsInputs• Innovation drivers: S&T graduates• Knowledge creation: Expenditure on R&D• Innovation & Entrepreneurship: Expenditure on ICT
Outputs• Application: Employ. Med/high-tech manf. , High-Tech
Exports• Intellectual Property: Patent applications
2. Why Germany, Lithuania and Spain?
Source: European Innovation Scoreboard 2006
3. Economic BackgroundGermany
INDICATORS NationalPerformance EU 25
2000 2005 2000 2005
GDP per capita in PPS (EU25=100) 112,1 108,2 100 100
Real GDP growth rate (% change previous year) 3,2 0,9 3,9 1,6
Total employment growth (annual % change) 1,9 0,4* 1,5 0,6*
Inflation rate (average annual) 1,4 1,9 2,4 2,2
Unemployment rate (as % of active population) 7,2 9,5 8,6 8,7
Foreign direct investment intensity 6,7 -0,8 2,4 0,9*
Business investment as a percentage of GDP 19,6 16,0* 18,3 17,1*
Source: Eurostat “Structural Indicators and long-term Indicators”
3. Economic BackgroundLithuania
INDICATORS NationalPerformance
EU 25
2000 2005 2000 2005
GDP per capita in PPS (EU25=100) 38.5 48.1 100 100
Real GDP growth rate (% change previous year) 3.9 6.7 3,9 1,6
Total employment growth (annual % change) -3.7 2.4 1,5 0,6*
Inflation rate (average annual) 0.9 1.1 2,4 2,2
Unemployment rate (as % of active population) 1.6 11.0 8,6 8,7
Foreign direct investment intensity 1.7 0.6* 2,4 0,9*
Business investment as a percentage of GDP 16.0 18.0* 18,3 17,1*
Source: Eurostat “Structural Indicators and long-term Indicators”
3. Economic BackgroundSpain
INDICATORS NationalPerformance
EU 25
2000 2005 2000 2005
GDP per capita in PPS (EU25=100) 91.3 98.3 100 100
Real GDP growth rate (% change previous year) 5 3.4 3,9 1,6
Total employment growth (annual % change) 5.1 2.6 1,5 0,6*
Inflation rate (average annual) 3.5 3.4 2,4 2,2
Unemployment rate (as % of active population) 11.1 9.2 8,6 8,7
Foreign direct investment intensity 8.4 3.2 2,4 0,9*
Business investment as a percentage of GDP 22.8 24.5 18,3 17,1*
Source: Eurostat “Structural Indicators and long-term Indicators”
4. Study Case
• Definition of NIS (National Innovation System)
”The network of institutions in the public and private sectors whose activities and interactions initiate, import, modify and diffuse new technologies may be described as the “National Systems of Innovation”
Source: Freeman, C. (1987); Technology Policy and Economic Performance – Lessons from Japan; Pinter Publishers, London.
4. Study CaseInnovation Indicators
Innovation System Innovation Actors
1. Education2. R&D3. Implementation4. Financing5. Networking6. Demand7. Regulation and Competition
1. Citizen2. Enterprice3. State
Source: DIW 2006 – Innovationsindikator Deutschland 2006
4. Study Case
• Analysis of inputs and outputs some innovation indicators:
– Education System– Research and development– Implementation
Germany, Lithuania and Spain
4. Study Case
• Education: It is very important for the innovation ability. The society can be innovative only with qualified personnel, intelligent engineers and creative scientists.
Input: Spending on HR - %GDP
0,00
1,00
2,00
3,00
4,00
5,00
6,00
7,00
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Germany
Lithuania
Spain
4. Study CaseOutput: Science and Technology (S&T) graduates per 1000 population between the age of 20 - 29
Output: Employment in high and medium high technology manufacturing sector - % total employment rate
0,00
2,00
4,00
6,00
8,00
10,00
12,00
14,00
16,00
18,00
20,00
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Germany
Lithuania
Spain
0,00
5,00
10,00
15,00
20,00
25,00
30,00
35,00
40,00
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Germany
Lithuania
Spain
4. Study Case
• Research & Development (R&D): It is actually the branch of high technology where the needs for developing creative ideas and their conversion into innovation exist
Input: Gross Domestic Expenditure on R&D (GERD) - %GDP
0,00
0,50
1,00
1,50
2,00
2,50
3,00
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Germany
Lithuania
Spain
4. Study Case
Output: Patent Application to the EPO - Applications per million inhabitants in thousands
0,00
50,00
100,00
150,00
200,00
250,00
300,00
350,00
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Germany
Lithuania
Spain
4. Study Case
• Implementation of the innovation in the production: The process of the innovation reaches its target, if the companies make realisation of the products and services or procedures in the market.
Input: ICT expenditure - IT - %GDP
0,00
0,50
1,00
1,50
2,00
2,50
3,00
3,50
2003 2004 2005
Germany
Lithuania
Spain
4. Study Case
Output: High Tech Exports - share of total exports
02468
1012141618
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Germany
Lithuania
Spain
6. Conclusions
6. Conclusions
• GERMANY – leader.• Weakness in HR investment• Strength in use HR in high-tech industry
• SPAIN – trailer.• Weakness in no efficient use of HR in high-tech industry • Strenght in investment in HR intelectual property
• LITHUANIA – catching-up.• Weakness: apparently not efficient use of HR in high-tech
industry BUT the „survey“ reveals that Lithuania uses HR in a different way.
• Strenght: absortive capacity for new ideas and technology innovation in all given industries, including services.
TUSEN TAKK
Top Related