METHODOLOGICAL DEBATE ON THE ‘REGIONAL INNOVATION SCOREBOARD’.
METHODOLOGICAL DEBATE ON THE ‘REGIONAL INNOVATION SCOREBOARD’.
TABLE 1
TABLE 2
Definition of performance groups and subgroups in the RIS
Innovative regions groups and sub- groups by country
Source: European Union (2021b: 18)
Source: European Union (2021b: 20)
HIGHER SUB-GROUP (+)
HIGHER SUB-GROUP (-)
HIGHER SUB-GROUP
GROUP
COUNTRY
EIS GROUP 2021
INNOVATION LEADERS
STRONG INNOVATORS
MODERATE INNOVATORS
EMERGING INNOVATORS
Innovation leaders
1 1 1 1 + 5
- 21
- 24
+ 25
+ 35
- 26
+ 19
- 10
INNOVATION LEADERS + Above 144.8% of EU average STRONG INNOVATORS + Between 116.7% and 125% of the EU average MODERATE INNOVATORS + Between 90% and 100% of the EU average EMERGING INNOVATORS + Between 52.1% and 70% of the EU average
INNOVATION LEADERS Between 134.9% and 144.8% of the EU average STRONG INNOVATORS Between 108.3% and 116.7% of the EU average MODERATE INNOVATORS Between 80% and 90% of the EU average EMERGING INNOVATORS Between 34.1% and 52.1% of the EU average
INNOVATION LEADERS - Between 125% and 134.9% of the EU average STRONG INNOVATORS – Between 100% and 108.3% of the EU average MODERATE INNOVATORS – Between 70% and 80% of the EU average EMERGING INNOVATORS – Below 34.1% of EU average
22
22
3 2 9
22
Innovation leaders Innovation leaders Innovation leaders Innovation leaders Innovation leaders Strong innovators Strong innovators Strong innovators Strong innovators Strong innovators Strong innovators Strong innovators Strong innovators Strong innovators Moderate innovators Moderate innovators Moderate innovators Moderate innovators Moderate innovators Moderate innovators Moderate innovators Moderate innovators Moderate innovators Emerging innovators Emerging innovators Emerging innovators Emerging innovators Emerging innovators Emerging innovators Emerging innovators Emerging innovators
Switzerland Sweden Finland Denmark Belgium Netherlands United Kingdom Germany Luxembourg
3 1 1 1 1 3 2 9
Strong innovators
1 1 1 1 3 4 5
2
1 2 1 3 4 5
1
1
Moderate innovators
3
1 2
1 8
1
7
1
Emerging innovators
Austria Norway Estonia
1 1
2
1
2
3
1 2 1
Ireland France Italy Cyprus Malta Slovenia Spain Czech Republic
1 3 4
1 1 6
UE27 100
1 4
1
1
1 2
1
3 4
0
50
150
–
+
–
+
–
+
–
+
INNOVADORES EMERGENTES EMERGING
MODERADOS MODERATE
FUERTES STRONG
LÍDERES LEADERS
1 5 4
1 3
2 1
4
2 1 1
1
2 2
One of the conclusions drawn from the RIS is that all regional innovation leaders come from countries identified as innovation leaders or strong innovators, while most of the regions considered moderate or emerging innova- tors are in countries identified respectively as moderate and emerging (see Table 2). In other words, the characteristics of the national innovation system have a direct impact on the performance of the regions in this country. The only exceptions are those regions that the RIS considers to be “excellence hubs”, i.e. whose performance level is higher than for the country they come from. These are Prague in the Czech Republic, Attica and Crete in Greece, the Basque Country and Madrid in Spain, Emilia-Romagna in Italy, Budapest in Hungary,
Warsaw in Poland, the Bratislava Region in Slovakia, and Belgrade in Serbia. (TABLE 2)
Lithuania Portugal Greece Croatia Hungary Serbia Slovakia Poland Latvia Bulgaria Romania
1 3 5 1 4 3 3 6
1 4
1 2
2 2 3 1 1 1
In the case of Spain, a high level of diversity is evident in the regions, it being three times high- er in the best performing region (the Basque Country) than in the worst one (Ceuta) (see Table 3). Two of the regions are considered strong innovators, 10 moderate innovators, and 7 emerging innovators. (FIGURE 5)
1
3
1
9
3
1 1
2 7
32
33
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker