METHODOLOGICAL DEBATE ON THE ‘REGIONAL INNOVATION SCOREBOARD’.
METHODOLOGICAL DEBATE ON THE ‘REGIONAL INNOVATION SCOREBOARD’.
al innovation system and, secondly, to improve innovation activity results at national level. (FIGURE 2) The 2021 EIS indicators are grouped into 12 blocks: (1) Human resources; (2) Attractive re- search systems; (3) Digitalisation; (4) Funding and support; (5) Business investment; (6) Use of information technologies; (7) Innovators; (8) Relationships; (9) Industrial property rights; (10) Impact on employment; (11) Impact on sales and (12) Environmental sustainability. The image in Figure 3 shows Spanish evolution in each aspect between 2014 and 2021. Spain has performed positively in several of these aspects between 2014 and 2021, most notably improving human resources (with growth of 42.6%), business investment (40%), and rela - tions (30.8%). Meanwhile, we find poorer per - formance for impact on employment (-15.3%), industrial property rights (-12.1%), and attrac - tive research systems (-1.4%). 5 . (FIGURE 3) The conclusion we can draw from the EIS analysis at national level is that the Spanish innovation system is small in size. From this perspective, the Spanish science, technology and innovation policy should focus on those functions that require either more funding or an improvement in system operation, as a way to ensure better results in terms of innovation output. However, it should be remembered that increasing resources without taking into consideration their performance and assuming that they will naturally bear fruit is not a good strategy, since this would mean assuming that the linear model of innovation is true, when we know that it is not (see Section 2). That is why it is important to include the efficiency perspective when evaluating performance of innovation systems, as we argue in this docu- ment.
The literature on measuring innovation and characterising innovation systems e.g. Ed - quist et al. , 2018; Zabala-Iturriagagoitia et al. , 2021) has shown that the relationship between innovation system size and performance in terms of efficiency is not linear, since higher innovation capacity (i.e. the size or scale of the system) does not automatically imply that the system will be able to convert this growing capacity into a larger number of innovation results, which would mean lower efficiency of the system as a whole. One of the latest nationwide studies in this area (Barbero et al. , 2021) points to four different patterns for these two dimensions (Figure 4): (a) countries with low innovation capacity and low performance (LILP); (b) countries with high innovation capacity and high performance (HIHP); (c); countries with high innovation capacity and low performance (HILP), and (d) countries with low innovation capacity and high performance (LIHP). Barbero et al. (2021) show that most national innovation systems, including Spain’s, operate under diminishing returns to scale. In other words, the results (outputs) would grow at a lower rate if the system resources (inputs) were doubled. This shows that the current resource allocation is far from adequate, since in most cases resources are still being allo- cated to “saturated” system dimensions and functions, meaning the marginal gain from increased investment in these functions in terms of overall system performance will be practically nil. This requires in-depth recon - sideration of those dimensions and functions that require greater effort in order to achieve a balanced, consolidated, efficient innovation system. (FIGURE 4) Based on Barbero et al. (2021), the results are considerable, even despite innovation capacity (size) in Spain being small. As can be seen in Figure 4, Spain would be ranked 22nd in terms of inputs, while in terms of efficiency it would be in 7th place in the ranking of European countries. These results show the low innova -
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 3
Innovation performance of moderate innovating countries
Evolution of Spain's main national innovation system dimensions Value received by Spain in the Summary Innovation Index 2021 in each aspect of the EIS Source: Drafted in-house based on European Union (2021a)
Score relative to EU27 average in 2014 (=100) Source: Drafted in-house based on European Union (2021a)
EU AVERAGE
SPAIN
DIGITALISATION
ITALY
CZECH REPUBLIC
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
CYPRUS MALTA
LITHUANIA PORTUGAL
HUMAN RESOURCES
USE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES
SLOVENIA
GREECE
IMPACT ON SALES
ATTRACTIVE RESEARCH SYSTEMS
120
FUNDING AND SUPPORT
RELATIONSHIPS
BUSINESS INVESTMENT
110
IMPACT ON EMPLOYMENT INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
1
INNOVATORS
100
0,9
90
0,8
80
0,7
70
0,6
60
0,5
50
0,4
40
0,3
30
0,2
20
0,1
10
4 Of the 38 countries covered by the EIS 2021, Spain’s SII level growth for 2014- 2021 ranks 17th, with Lithuania (50.4%) growing the most in its synthetic index, and Ukraine (-13.7%) the least. 5 Details of the EIS 2021 results for Spain are available at https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/45936.
0
0
2014
2021
2014
2021
28
29
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker