Global innovation scoreboard

The new Global Innovation Scoreboard 2008 (GIS 2008) aims at comparing the innovation performance of the EU27 to that of the other major R&D spenders in the world: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, Republic of Korea, Mexico, Russian Federation, Singapore, South Africa and the United States. The GIS 2008 methodology includes 9 indicators of innovation and technological capabilities (see Table 4). They are grouped in three main dimensions (pillars): Firm Activities and Outputs, Human Resources and Infrastructures and Absorptive Capacity.

Table 4: GIS pillars and indicators

For each pillar a “Dimension Composite Innovation Index” is calculated as a simple average of the indicators. The GIS is composed by each Dimension Composite Innovation Index. Since the innovation scoreboard should emphasize the innovative activities which take place in the business sector, the first pillar - “Firm Activities and Outputs” - accounts for 40 per cent of the total GIS score, while the other two pillars - “Human Resources and “Infrastructures and Absorptive Capacity” - account for 30 per cent each [1]. As in the EIS all variables are normalized on a scale from 0 to 1, and countries are ranked on an ordinary scale. The GIS 2008 is calculated relatively to two different years – 1995 and 2005 – to allow over time comparison of national innovative performance [2]. It should be noted that a more limited set of indicators is used compared to the main EIS, as well as a different time period. Therefore the results differ from those of the main EIS, particularly for countries that increased their performance over the period 1995 to 2002 and for countries that have relative strengths in the indicators used in the GIS.

In Table 5 we summarize the Global Innovation Performance of countries by showing their ranks for the GIS and each of the three pillars relatively to years 1995 and 2005. Concerning 2005, among the top ten, countries perform differently across the three pillars. Switzerland, Japan, Korea and Germany show excellent relative performance in Firm innovative activities. Finland, Israel and Canada are particularly strong in Human Resources. Finally, Sweden and Denmark result well-positioned regarding their Infrastructures and Absorptive Capacity. By comparing the 2005 GIS ranks to 1995 as a whole, it is worth-emphasizing how innovation performance and technological capabilities are phenomena structural in nature.

Table 5: GIS: ranks and ranks variations [3] for each pillar, 1995 and 2005

Countries rank in fact fairly stable over ten years [4]. The fastest improving countries are China, which climbs eight positions (+8), Portugal (+7), Singapore (+7), Spain (+6) [5],

Cyprus (+5), Turkey (+5) and Brazil (+5). Singapore bases its increase mainly on Firm Activities and Human Resources, and Spain and Portugal particularly on Human Resources. China shows its best performance relatively to Firm Activities and Infrastructures and Absorptive Capacity, while it looses 3 positions on Human Resources. Brazil shows strong increases in Firm activities and Infrastructures and Absorptive Capacity and a moderate increase in Human Resources. As far as the other BRIC countries are concerned, India improves one position and the Russian Federation looses 2 positions.
The EU27 reaches the twentieth position, showing a good performance particularly on Firm Activities. The “balanced” innovation performance of the EU27 emerges from Figure 14 where it is notable how the three pillars have the same relative importance. The Unites States show a composition similar to that of the EU27, while Japan’s innovation performance is more based on business activities.

The 1995-2005 rank variations relative to the pillar Firm Activities and Outputs reflect the major dynamism of three BRIC countries, namely Brazil, China and India, concerning their business innovative performances as measured by patenting activity and business R&D expenditures. Among the top performers, some have been loosing ground relatively to the other countries, i.e. United States, Sweden, Norway, United Kingdom, Germany and France. On the opposite, some top performers have been increasing their position: Japan, Korea, Israel and Denmark. The 1995-2005 rank variations relative to the pillar Human Resources show that Luxembourg, Greece, Korea, Ireland, Singapore, Portugal and Spain are the best gainers. China looses some positions; India holds its position while Brazil and Russian Federation moderately improve. It is worth noting that among countries loosing positions there are advanced economies, e.g. the United States, Switzerland, Sweden, Japan, Italy, France, Belgium and Germany. The 1995-2005 rank variations relative to the pillar Infrastructures and Absorptive Capacity show that the more dynamic countries include three BRIC countries, Brazil, China and India, in addition to Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Luxembourg, Norway, Switzerland and United Kingdom.

Finally, Figure 14 reveals the relative contributions of the three pillars to the GIS 2005. The relative contribution of the innovative performance of the business sector - Firm Activities and Outputs – is particularly important for the first 15 countries with the exception of Canada, Norway and Australia. Also China shows a relative high score in innovative activities taking place in the business sector. Among the BRIC countries, Human Resources play an important role for the innovation performance of the Russian Federation and India, while Brazil and China show higher relative contributions from Infrastructure and Absorptive Capacity.