Reflections on Discussions About Technical Efficiency of Innovativeness of Countries

Open access

Abstract

The objective of this article is to outline various drawbacks of the studies on technical efficiency of pro-innovation activities at a national level. A better awareness of existing constraints may assist the readers and reviewers of the relative reports in a more critical assessment of the presented results and help in planning the research. This article outlines several methodological problems faced with conducting research on the technical efficiency of innovations. On the basis of the review of the subject-related literature, as well as press releases, numerous restraints prevailing in the currently used research approaches are presented. Some of these precincts are evidenced in the used methods: other may be rooted in the non-scientifically related intentions of the authors. Frequently, observations may drive the audience to the incorrect conclusions and opinions. The awareness of the consequences of these limitations may serve as a warning about the reliability of the results, their applicability for crafting policies, and country-to-country comparisons. However, various limitations originate from the very nature of the theme. Several propositions are specified about items to be kept in mind in order to minimize the negative impact caused by existing drawbacks. These may serve as a guide to formulate research questions and hypotheses for verification in further studies. While each of the propositions stated independently may be labeled obvious, their simultaneous review many contribute to the streamlining further research and in the improvement of the quality of suggestions arrived at. The conclusions from the article may also pinpoint to these methodological issues that cause some of the publications on the subject to be of questionable value.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • [1] Adam F. 2014. Measuring National Innovation Performance. Heidelberg: Springer Briefs in Economics.

  • [2] Arundel A. Hollanders H. 2005. Policy Indicators and Targets: Measuring the Impact of Innovation Policies. Brussels: European Commission.

  • [3] Balzat M. Hanusch H. 2004. Recent Trends in the Research on National Innovation Systems. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 14(2) pp.197-210.

  • [4] Balzat M. Pyka A. 2005. Mapping National Innovation Systems in the OECD Area [online] Available at: http://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/ebook/serien/lm/vwl_diskussionsreihe/279.pdf [Accessed February 1 2019].

  • [5] Borrás S. Edquist Ch. 2016. Conceptual Underpinnings for Innovation Policy Design: Indicators and Instruments in Context. Unpublished paper prepared for the OECD Blue Sky Conference III September 19-21 2016 Ghent Belgium.

  • [6] Borrás S. Edquist Ch. 2013. The Choice of Innovation Policy Instruments. CIRCLE - Center for Innovation Research and Competences in the Learning Economy. Lund: Lund University.

  • [7] Caballero J.R. 2014. Measuring Innovation Efficiency in Europe. A Färe-Primont TFP Index Approach. Barcelona: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona Department D’Economia Aplicada.

  • [8] Dahlman C.J. 1994. Technology Strategy in East Asian Developing Countries. Journal of Asian Economics 5(4) pp.541-572.

  • [9] Dosi G. Freeman C. Nelson R. Silverberg G. and Soete L. 1988. Technological Change and Economic Theory. London: Pinter Publishers.

  • [10] Edquist Ch. Zabala Iturriagagtia J.M. 2018. Outputs of Innovation Systems: a European Perspective. Centre for Innovation Research and competence in the Learning Economy (CIRCLE) Lund University [online] Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228365493Outputs_of_innovation_systems_a_European_perspective [Accessed Jan 6 2019].

  • [11] Edquist Ch. 2016. The Swedish National Council: Innovation Policy Governance to Replace Linearity with Holism. Papers in Innovation Studies Paper No. 2016/24 CIRCLE Lund University Lund.

  • [12] EIS 2005 to 2018. European Innovation Scoreboard 2017 – Comparative Analysis of Innovation Performance. Brussels: European Commission European Trend Chart on Innovation.

  • [13] EISa 2018. European Innovation Scoreboard 2018. Discussion Paper. Workshop on the European Innovation Scoreboard: Perspectives for 2020 and Beyond. November European Commission Directorate-General for Internal Market Industry Entrepreneurship and SMEs Brussels.

  • [14] EISb 2018. European Innovation Scoreboard 2018. Exploratory Report B: Toward the Incorporation of Big Data in the European Innovation Scoreboard 19 June European Commission Directorate-General for Internal Market Industry Entrepreneurship and SMEs Brussels.

  • [15] EISc 2018. European Innovation Scoreboard. Workshop on the European Innovation Scoreboard: Perspectives for 2020 and Beyond. Key Takeaways. November Brussels: European Commission.

  • [16] EISd 2018. European Innovation Scoreboard 2018. Exploratory Report C: Supplementary Analyses and Contextualization of Innovation Performance Data. Directorate-General for Internal Market Industry Entrepreneurship and SMEs. June Brussels: European Commission.

  • [17] EU 2014. Research and innovation: Pushing Boundaries and Improving the Quality of Life. Directorate-General for Communication. Brussels: European Commission.

  • [18] Fagerberg J. 1994. Technology and International Differences in Growth Rate. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 32(3) pp.183-200.

  • [19] FM (Frascati Manual) 2015. Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and Experimental Development. In series: The Measurement of Scientific Technological and Innovation Activities. Paris: OECD.

  • [20] Freudenberg M. 2003. Composite Indicators of Country Performance: A Critical Assessment. STI Working paper2003/16 Industry Issues OECD JT00153477.

  • [21] Gault F. 2013. Handbook of Innovation Indicators and Measurement. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

  • [22] GCR 2018. The Global Competitiveness Report 2017-18 K. Schwab ed. World Economic Forum Geneva [online] Available at: https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-competitiveness-report-2017-2018 [Accessed February 10 2019].

  • [23] GII 2018. Global Innovation Index 2018. Eds.: Soumitra D. Bruno L. Wunsch-Vincent S. [online] Available at: https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/gii-2018-repor [Accessed February 10 2019].

  • [24] Grupp H. Schubert T. 2010. Review and New Evidence on Composite Innovation Indicators for Evaluating National Performance. Research Policy 39(1) pp.67-78.

  • [25] Grupp H. Mogee M.E. 2004. Indicators for National Science and Technology Policy: How Robust are Composite Indicators? Research Policy 33(9) pp.1373-1384.

  • [26] Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators 2008. Paris: OECD.

  • [27] HDI 2014. Human Development Index 2014. United Nations Development Programme. New York: Published for the United Nations Development Program.

  • [28] Hollanders H. Esser F.C. 2007. Measuring innovation efficiency. ProInno Europe – InnoMetrics.

  • [29] INNO 2006. What is Innovation? [online] Available at: http://www.hi.is/~joner/eaps/innodd.htm [Accessed March 6 2017].

  • [30] KAM 2019. Knowledge Assessment Methodology and Knowledge Economy index: Knowledge for Development Program The World Bank Institute [online] Available at: https://estadisticas.pr/files/BibliotecaVirtual/estadisticas/biblioteca/BM/BM_KAM_2008.pdf [Accessed February 10 2019].

  • [31] Katz S. 2006. Indicators for Complex Innovation Systems. Research Policy 35(7) pp.893-909.

  • [32] Kravchenko N.A. 2011.The Problem of Measuring and Assessing National Innovation Systems. Problems of Economic Transition 53(9) pp.61-73.

  • [33] Lundvall B. 2007. National Innovation Systems - Analytical Concept and Development Tool”. Industry and Innovation 14(1) pp.95-119.

  • [34] Lundvall B.A (ed) 2007. National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning Pinter Publishers London.

  • [35] Metcalfe S. 1995. The Economic Foundations of Technology Policy: Equilibrium and Evolutionary Perspectives. In: P. Stoneman (ed.) Handbook of the Economics of Innovation and Technological Change. Oxford (UK)/Cambridge (US): Blackwell Publishers.

  • [36] Murillo-Zamorano L.R. 2004. Economic Efficiency and Frontier Techniques. Journal of Economic Surveys 18(1) pp.33-77.

  • [37] Nasierowski W. 2010. About Technical Efficiency of Efforts to Enhance Innovativeness in European Union. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management 7(4) pp.389-404.

  • [38] Nasierowski W. 2009. A Conceptual Framework for Formalization of National Innovation Systems. Foundations of Management 1(2) pp.159-166.

  • [39] Nasierowski W. 2016. Composite Indexes of Economic and Social Performance: Do they Provide Valuable Information. Foundations of Management 8(1) pp.167-174.

  • [40] Nasierowski W. and Arcelus F. 2012. What is Innovativeness: Literature Review. Foundations of Management 4(1) pp.63-74.

  • [41] Nasierowski W. and Arcelus F. 2003. On the efficiency of National Innovation Systems. Socio Economic Planning Sciences 37 pp.215-234.

  • [42] Nowak S. 1965. Metody badań socjologicznych (Methods of Sociological Research). Warszawa: PWN.

  • [43] OECD 2008. Handbook on constructing composite indicators: Methodology and user guide. Paris: JRC European Commission.

  • [44] OECD 2010. Measuring innovation: A new perspective. Paris: OECD Publications.

  • [45] OECD 1997. National Innovation Systems. Paris: OECD Publications.

  • [46] OECD 1999. Managing National Innovation Systems. Paris: OECD Publications.

  • [47] OM (Oslo Manual) 2005. Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data 3rd edition Paris: OECD Publications.

  • [48] Owen R. Macnaghten P. and Stilgoe J. 2012. Responsible Research and Innovation: from Science in Society to Science for Society with Society. Science and Public Policy 39(6) pp.751-760.

  • [49] Patel P. Pavitt K. 1994. The Nature and Economic Importance of National Innovation Systems. STI Review No. 14. Paris - OECD Publications.

  • [50] Schibany A. Streicher G. 2008. The European Innovation Scoreboard: Drowning by Numbers? Science and Public Policy 35(10) pp.717-732.

  • [51] Sharif N. 2006. Emergence and Development of the National Innovation System Concept. Research Policy 35 pp.745-766.

  • [52] WCY 2017. World Competitiveness Yearbook. Lausanne.

Search
Journal information
Impact Factor


CiteScore 2018: 0.44

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.195
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.326

Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 67 67 11
PDF Downloads 47 47 8