METHODOLOGICAL DEBATE ON THE ‘REGIONAL INNOVATION SCOREBOARD’.
METHODOLOGICAL DEBATE ON THE ‘REGIONAL INNOVATION SCOREBOARD’.
adopt the knowledge and innovations devel- oped by other countries, since their innovation systems do not enjoy the conditions neces- sary to effectively generate and disseminate innovations internally. This strategy requires lower levels of development, and therefore less investment in system operation, while at the same time producing more efficient behaviour (since, firstly, risk is reduced and, secondly, it is faster to adopt the knowledge and innova- tion developed by others than to produce it oneself). It should also be noted that countries with fewer resources should pay more atten- tion to how these are used, as they cannot afford to waste the scarce resources devoted to innovation activities, with caution always leading to greater efficiency. One possible strategy for Spain, whose in - novation system is dominated by SMEs and mini-SMEs, would be to exploit the advantages brought by this industrial fabric (e.g. flexibil - ity and use of external networks); this would require a clear improvement in the system’s ability to effectuate, merging internal and exter- nal networks that allow SMEs to quickly access knowledge and technology and to integrate them in their production processes (Daven- port and Bibby, 1999). In other words, Spanish innovation policy should fundamentally con- sider creating and consolidating technical-sci- entific networks with a view to maximising the country's capacity to absorb and transform its innovation system. As part of the COTEC-fund - ed Open Innovation Programme, a study was carried out between 2018 and 2020 to analyse open innovation patterns in the three most dynamic regions: Catalonia, Madrid and the Basque Country (Salazar-Elena et al. , 2020). The study shows the importance of having agents acting as a bridge between scientific research and business innovation, with tech- nology centres emerging as a key institution in terms of developing a more productive and in- novative business fabric. In line with the results set out in this report, the study by Salazar-Ele- na et al. (2020) shows that Madrid Region and Catalonia still have much room for improve-
FIGURE 4 Relationship between the system size and performance in terms of efficiency Horizontal axis: Ranking based on the innovation inputs scale (4 inputs) Vertical axis: Ranking based on innovation performance (RCII) Source: Barbero et al . (2021: 10)
In terms of in- puts, Spain would rank 22nd, while in terms of efficiency it would climb to 7th position
THE MORE THE BETTER PARADIGM EFFICIENCY PARADIGM
31
LILP
HIGH HILP
LOW INNOVATION , LOW PRODUCTIVITY
INNOVATION , LOW PRODUCTIVITY
LITHUANIA
SWEDEN
ESTONIA
CROATIA
FINLAND
ISLANDIA
BULGARIA
POLAND
NORUEGA
ROMANIA
BÉLGICA
R. UNIDO
HUNGARY
ment in promoting open innovation. As for the Basque Country, although it has made a much clearer commitment to technology centres, it also has its weaknesses, since its collaboration networks are mainly local. This diagnosis at national level is reproduced by the European Commission at regional level (European Union, 2021b). In line with the struc - ture provided by the EIS, where countries are classified in four groups (see Figure 1) accord - ing to their SII, the RIS also classifies Europe’s regions in innovation leaders (38 regions), strong innovators (67 regions), moderate innovators (68 regions), and emerging innova- tors (67 regions). However, given the territorial diversity in the 240 European regions, the RIS provides a more detailed breakdown of each of these groups by dividing them into three subgroups: a “+” is assigned to the subgroup with the best performance, and a “–” to the subgroup with the worst one (see Figure 5). The most innovative regions will therefore be “Innovation Leaders +”, while the least inno- vation will be “Emerging Innovators -”. Table 1 shows the logic followed in characterising European regions into these groups and sub- groups. (TABLE 1)
LATVIA
CZECH REPUBLIC
SLOVENIA
SWITZERLAND
IR E LAND
16
FRANCE
PORTUGAL
HOLLAND
SPAIN
CYPRUS
DENMARK
SLOVAKIA
GERMANY
GREECE
HIGH INNOVATION , HIGH PRODUCTIVITY
LOW INNOVATION , HIGH PRODUCTIVITY
LUXEMB O URG
MALTA
ITALY
AUSTRIA
HIHP
LIHP
1
1
16
31
tion capacity of the system as a whole (i.e. low inputs), which increases efficiency in the short term (i.e. high output/input ratio). However, this transitory result should not be misinterpreted in a self-interestedly triumphalist way, since innovation performance must be evaluated from a long-term rather than a short-term per- spective. Evidence in this regard is clear, as it
shows that the lack of system investment and the absence of policies focused on improving system operation will lead to a loss of competi- tiveness in the long term. Countries classified in the Spain group (i.e. countries with low innovation capacity and high performance: LIHP) tend to absorb and
30
31
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker