METHODOLOGICAL DEBATE ON THE ‘REGIONAL INNOVATION SCOREBOARD’.
METHODOLOGICAL DEBATE ON THE ‘REGIONAL INNOVATION SCOREBOARD’.
Stability the ranking of regions of the RIS 4.1
the variables considered by the RIS), and this variation is greater when the regions are closer to the index's mean value. This means that any minor changes in the indicators in the index (or in the indicators of other regions with nearby positions) could have a very significant effect on middle-ranking regions, even though the structure and make-up of the innovation sys- tem remain much the same. This is particularly relevant for the Spanish regions, (shown in blue in Figure 7), as many of them are mid-ranking. (FIGURE 7) This leads us to ask how significant the dif - ferences between regions are when using the RIS as a comparative measurement of their innovation capacity. With a view to solving this problem, we will focus on assigning different relative weights to the RIS variables.
All data included in the RIS are transformed and normalised to a 0-1 scale, i.e. with a dis - tribution that approximates a normal function and allows comparison between regions with dissimilar system structures and composi- tions, using the same scale for all territories (see Annex I). This transformation and nor - malisation of the data used in the RIS makes the distribution of the regions over the RIS synthetic index values approximate a normal density function (European Union, 2021b: 82). As shown in Figure 6, this implies a greater agglomeration of regions in the middle of the ranking compared to the ends, where the con- centration of regions with a very high or very low RIS is lower. (FIGURE 6)
One important consequence of this methodo - logical choice is more instability in the middle part of the ranking. Since all indicators receive the same relative weights, and these weights are identical for all European regions, there is a greater concentration of middle-ranked regions. This means that any marginal differ - ences in the indicators in the RIS can result in very distant positions in the final ranking, given the high concentration of regions with similar RISs. As shown in Figure 7, although the aver - age change in ranking position between 2014 and 2021 was 14 places, some regions have changed by up to 70 places (which is highly implausible, given the structural nature of
FIGURE 6
FIGURE 7
Distribution of regions on the RIS
RIS-induced ranking instability, 2014-2021.
Source: Drafted in-house based on European Union (2021b)
Source: Drafted in-house based on European Union (2021b)
SPANISH REGIONS
70
20
15
10
5
0
0
90 RIS-2021 ( EU 27=100)
90 RIS-2021 ( EU 27=100)
0
30
60
120
150
180
0
30
60
120
150
180
38
39
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker