Linking collaborative R&D strategies with the research and innovation performance of SMEs in peripheral regions: Do spatial and organizational choices make a difference?

2015 ◽  
Vol 55 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 555-596 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timo Mitze ◽  
Björn Alecke ◽  
Janina Reinkowski ◽  
Gerhard Untiedt
Keyword(s):  
Innovation Performance ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Peripheral Regions

scholarly journals Prospects for innovation performance on European level

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 100-114
Author(s):  
Nuša Erman
Keyword(s):  
Public Funding ◽  
Innovation Performance ◽  
European Level ◽  
Community Innovation Survey ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Innovation Activities ◽  
Enterprise Level ◽  
Future Direction ◽  
Innovation Indicators

Abstract In 2004, the European Commission implemented the Decision No 1608/2003/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the production and development of Community statistics on innovation. This triggered the awareness of the role of innovation and R&D on national and European level and thus the opportunity to step towards in-depth monitoring innovation performance through various indicators. The paper aims to investigate the trends in the selected innovation indicators (i.e., public funding, expenditures and innovation activities, types of innovation and products introduced, hampered innovation activities) to outline the development direction on the enterprise level using the Community innovation survey data for the 2002–2016 period. Using the basic time series analysis, the paper evaluates the progress according to the European Strategy on research and innovation. Furthermore, using the autocorrelation and autoregression methods, the paper also outlines the future direction in innovation performance on European level.

scholarly journals Different Approaches to Managing Innovation Activities: An Analysis of Strong, Moderate, and Modest Innovators

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Viktor Prokop ◽  
Jan Stejskal
Keyword(s):  
Spillover Effects ◽  
Innovation Performance ◽  
Community Innovation Survey ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Innovation Potential ◽  
Innovation Activities ◽  
Microeconomic Analysis ◽  
The Eu

In the present day, innovation has become a key element of competitive advantage. However, most countries are failing in their innovative activities, and their innovative performance is below that of the EU average. Therefore, the European Commission annually publishes its Innovation Union Scoreboard, which provides a comparative assessment of the EU member states’ research and innovation performance. The countries are divided into four groups according to their innovation performance: innovation leaders, strong innovators, moderate innovators, and modest innovators. In this paper, we have selected countries whose innovation performance was close to, below, or well below that of the EU average in 2015, and we have performed microeconomic analysis of the situation in these countries’ firms to analyze the conditions of their innovation environment and uncover barriers to their innovation activities. We analyzed firms in the manufacturing industries in Slovenia (a strong innovator), Croatia (a moderate innovator), and Romania (a modest innovator) by using original multiple regression models and data from the 2010–2012 Community Innovation Survey. The results demonstrate the different backgrounds for innovation in each country. In Romania, there is a lack of both a satisfactory environment for innovation and sufficient capacity for absorbing public funds; investment into innovation-related activities is also absent. In Croatia, the innovation potential has not been fully exploited. However, we show that the appropriate targeting of innovation determinants (e.g., collaboration with different partners or public financing) could lead to the creation of synergies and spillover effects that would be able to support their innovative activities and strengthen the country’s competitiveness. There is a completely different situation in Slovenia. Firms there effectively utilize the various determinants of innovation activities, and these determinants have strong influence when utilized on their own. On the other hand, results also show that certain significant combinations of determinants of innovation activities are missing in Slovenia. In conclusion, we have proposed practical implications for policy makers that would be able to support innovative activities and help each country to improve its innovation ranking.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.28.1.16111

scholarly journals Visegrad Countries and Regions: Innovation Performance and Efficiency

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oto Hudec
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Composite Index ◽  
Innovation Systems ◽  
Innovation Performance ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Regional Innovation ◽  
Regional Comparison ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Innovative Capacity ◽  
Visegrád Countries

<div><strong>Purpose:</strong> The aim of the article is to study the differences between efficiency of their research and innovation systems, innovation performance and efficiency of the Visegrad countries (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia) as well as their regions.</div><div> </div><div><strong>Methodology/Approach:</strong> Visegrad countries are to be compared according to national innovative capacity framework based on the composite index methodology The regional innovation efficiency is examined by considering R&amp;D expenditures as inputs and patents as outputs. The efficiency of the regional research and innovation systems is based on the concept of knowledge production function (Cobb - Douglas type).</div><div> </div><div><strong>Findings:</strong> Visegrad countries do not belong among the best performers in innovation and competitiveness in the European Union. The findings show a substantial difference if replacing commonly evaluated innovation performance by the efficiency. Except the capital regions, there are several Polish and Czech regions which belong to the most efficient in innovation in the Visegrad regional comparison: Lodzkie, Lesser Poland, Central Moravia and South-East Moravia.</div><div> </div><div><strong>Research Limitation/implication:</strong> The research shows the limitation of the innovation performance as published by the European Commission in a form of Regional Innovation Monitor. </div><div> </div><div><strong>Originality/Value of paper:</strong> The approach of relative efficiency evaluation shows a rather different picture in comparison to previous static models and comparisons. </div>

scholarly journals Positioning research and innovation performance using shape centroids of h-core and h-tail

2011 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 515-528 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chung-Huei Kuan ◽  
Mu-Hsuan Huang ◽  
Dar-Zen Chen
Keyword(s):  
Innovation Performance ◽  
Research And Innovation

scholarly journals Analysis of the Impact of Intangible Resources at Macroeconomic Level. The Case of Romania

2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 98-104
Author(s):  
Sebastian Emanuel Stan
Keyword(s):  
Economic Growth ◽  
Current Knowledge ◽  
National Level ◽  
Innovation Performance ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Intangible Resources ◽  
Country Level ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Knowledge Based Economy ◽  
The Impact

Abstract The results of literature analysis confirm the strategic value of intangible resources in creating wealth and conferring competitive advantages to nations. However, there are few academic papers related to intangible resources at country level. At national level, economic growth is increasingly based on knowledge and other intangible resources than on physical ones. To test this hypothesis in Romania, this article analyses how intangible resources influence economic growth, and correlation indices between different types of intangible resources and gross domestic product value are calculated. The analysis shows that there are very strong positive correlations between GDP and most of the intangible resource variables. Despite the importance of intangible resources at national level and the fact that they are an important factor in determining economic growth in the current knowledge-based economy, Romania's position in the international context regarding intangible assets is very weak, with many weak points in research and innovation performance compared to other EU Member States. Therefore, there is a need in our country to re-evaluate the areas where all efforts need to be focused to stimulate innovation performance, to properly manage national intangible resources, a crucial process for improving the quality of life

scholarly journals The National Intangible Resources and Their Importance in the Current Knowledge-Based Economy

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 45-49
Author(s):  
Camelia Oprean-Stan ◽  
Sebastian Stan ◽  
Antonio Pele
Keyword(s):  
Intangible Assets ◽  
Current Knowledge ◽  
National Level ◽  
Innovation Performance ◽  
Annual Reports ◽  
International Context ◽  
Intangible Resources ◽  
Knowledge Based ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Knowledge Based Economy

Abstract In this article, models for assessing national intangible resources are analysed through a lecture in the literature, and the best-known evaluation methods are categorized into academic models and models of international organizations, with the most important differences being identified. The European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS) and the World Economic Forum annual reports on Global Competitiveness were considered to assess Romania's position in the international context in terms of intangible assets. Despite the importance of intangible resources at national level and the fact that they are an important factor in determining economic growth in the current knowledge-based economy, this article concludes that Romania's position in the international context regarding intangible assets is very weak, with many weak points in research and innovation performance compared to other EU Member States. Therefore, there is a need in our country to re-evaluate the areas where all efforts need to be focused to stimulate innovation performance, to properly manage national intangible resources, a crucial process for improving the quality of life.

scholarly journals Ambitious or Ambiguous? The Implications of Smart Specialisation for Core-Periphery Relations in Estonia and Slovakia

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 49-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian Schulz
Keyword(s):  
Priority Setting ◽  
Current Approach ◽  
Strategy Formulation ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Current Form ◽  
Spatial Targeting ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Innovation Potential ◽  
Smart Specialisation ◽  
Peripheral Regions

Abstract The article explores the implications of the smart specialisation approach on core-periphery relations in Estonia and Slovakia. Despite accounting for one-third of the entire EU budget, Cohesion Policy has produced only modest results in achieving its goal of territorial cohesion between centres and peripheries. This raises the question of the role of Cohesion Policy’s current approach—smart specialisation. By applying the analytical concept of peripheralisation, the article examines how the formulation and implementation of smart specialisation is governed in Estonia and Slovakia, both of which are characterised by large territorial disparities between the capital region and the rest of the country in terms of socio-economic development and participation in decision-making. Specifically, the article explores how the smart specialisation approach is interpreted domestically in terms of strategy formulation, priority-setting and spatial targeting of measures, and whether the particular domestic interpretation of smart specialisation acknowledges the unequal economic and research and innovation potential as well as different institutional capacities of central and peripheral regions. Drawing on extensive document analysis and 20 expert interviews with policy-makers and stakeholders in Estonia and Slovakia, it is argued that while ambitiously promoting an approach of ‘inclusive growth’ for the benefit of all regions, the influence of smart specialisation on core-periphery relations shows to be ambiguous. Fuzzy priority-setting, a lack of strategic and administrative capacities at the regional level and inhibiting policy-making routines discourage and, at times, prevent such a demanding approach. The article concludes that smart specialisation in its current form does not benefit central and peripheral regions equally. Rather, its demands in terms of formulation and implementation are likely to reinforce the disparities between those regions with capacities to handle such an ambitious approach and those regions without such capacities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document