Post on 03-Apr-2018
transcript
7/28/2019 Innovacion Regional 2012 Regions Europa
1/76
Regional
InnovationScoreboard2012
Enterprise
and Industry
7/28/2019 Innovacion Regional 2012 Regions Europa
2/76
More inormation on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu)
Cataloguing data can be ound at the end o this publication.
ISBN 9789279263088
doi: 10.2769/55659
Cover picture: iStockphoto_16961307 Tibor Nag
European Union, 2012
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Printed in Belgium
PRINTED ON CHLORE FREE PAPER
Legal notice:
The views expressed in this report, as well as the inormation included in it, do not necessaril reect the
opinion or position o the European Commission and in no wa commit the institution.
This report was prepared by:
Hugo Hollanders, Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and technolog (UNUMERIT)
Lorena Rivera Lon & Laura Roman, Technopolis Group.
With inputs rom:
Cambridge Econometrics, Centre or Science and Technolog Studies (CWTS Leiden Universit), Joint Research Centre
Institute or the Protection and Securit o the Citizen.
Coordinated by:
DirectorateGeneral or Enterprise and Industr
Directorate B Sustainable Growth and EU 2020
Unit B3 Innovation Polic or Growth
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateul to the CIS Task Force members or their useul comments on previous drafs o the RIS report
and the accompaning Methodolog report. In particular we are grateul to all Member States which have made available
regional data rom their Communit Innovation Surve. Without these data, the construction o a Regional Innovation
Scoreboard would not have been possible.
Europe Direct is a service to help you nd answers
to your questions about the European Union
Freephone number (*):
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls ma be billed.
7/28/2019 Innovacion Regional 2012 Regions Europa
3/76
RegionalInnovationScoreboard 2012
This report is accompanied b the Regional Innovation Scoreboard 2012 Methodolog report
available on Europa: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/index_en.htm
The ear 2012 in this edition o the Regional Innovation Scoreboard reers to the ear in which the analtical work was completed.
7/28/2019 Innovacion Regional 2012 Regions Europa
4/76
7/28/2019 Innovacion Regional 2012 Regions Europa
5/76
TABLE OF CONTENTS
6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
8 1 INTRODUCTION
9 2 INDICATORS AND DATA AVAILABILITY
9 2.1 Indicators
9 2.2 Data availability
11 2.3 Regional coverage
12 3 REGIONAL INNOVATION PERFORMANCE
12 3.1 Innovation perormance analysis Regional Innovation Index
17 3.2 A urther renement o the cluster groups
19 3.3 Comparison with the Regional Competitiveness Index
22 3.4 Relative perormance analysis
25 4 METHODOLOGY
25 4.1 Imputation o missing data
26 4.2 Composite indicators
28 5 REGIONAL RESEARCH AND INNOVATION POTENTIAL THROUGH EU FUNDING,
28 5.1 Introduction
28 5.2 The use o EU unding at regional level
30 5.3 Indicators and data availability
30 5.3.1 Data sources
30 5.3.2 Indicators
31 5.4 Methodology
32 5.5 Regional absorption and leverage o EU unding
35 5.5.1 Matching leverage and absorption capacity to innovation perormance
36 5.5.2 Changing leverage, absorption capacity o EU unding and innovation perormance
36 5.6 Regional research and innovation potential through EU unding: conclusions
37 6 CONCLUSIONS
38 ANNEX 1: RIS indicators explained in detail
42 ANNEX 2: Regional innovation perormance group membership
47 ANNEX 3: Regional data availability
49 ANNEX 4: Perormance maps per indicator
61 ANNEX 5: Normalised data per indicator by region
71 ANNEX 6: Use/absorption o EU unding and regional innovation perormance:
2000-2006 vs. RIS2007
73 ANNEX 7: Use/absorption o EU unding and regional innovation perormance:
2000-2006 vs. RIS2012
7/28/2019 Innovacion Regional 2012 Regions Europa
6/76
Regional InnovationScoreboard 20126
Executive summaryThis edition o the European Regional Innovation
Scoreboard (RIS) provides a comparative assessmento innovation perormance across NUTS 1 and NUTS2 regions o the European Union, Croatia, Norwayand Switzerland. As the regional level is importantor economic development and or the design andimplementation o innovation policies, it is important tohave indicators to compare and benchmark innovation
perormance at regional level. Such evidence is vital to
inorm policy priorities and to monitor trends.
The 2012 Regional Innovation Scoreboard replicatesthe methodology used at national level in theInnovation Union Scoreboard (IUS), using 12 o the24 indicators used in the IUS or 190 regions acrossEurope.
The data available at regional level remainsconsiderably less than at national level. Due to theselimitations, the 2012 RIS does not provide an absoluteranking o individual regions, but ranks groups oregions at broadly similar levels o perormance. Themain results o the grouping analysis are summarised inthe map above, which shows our perormance groupssimilar to those identied in the Innovation UnionScoreboard, ranging rom Innovation leaders to Modestinnovators. Within each o the 4 perormance groups 3urther subgroups could be identied leading to a total
o 12 regional innovation perormance groups.
There is considerable diversity in regional
innovation perormances
The results show that most European countrieshave regions at dierent levels o perormance.For 2011 we observe at least one region ineach o the 4 broader perormance groups inFrance and Portugal. Czech Republic, Finland,Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden andthe UK have at least one region in 3 dierentperormance groups. This regional diversity in
innovation perormance also calls or regional
The EU Member StatesCyprus, Estonia, Latvia,Lithuania, Luxembourg andMalta are not included inthe RIS analysis. Groupmembership shown is thato the IUS 2011(Cyprus,Estonia and Luxembourg areinnovation ollowers, Maltais a moderate innovator andLatvia and Lithuania are
modest innovators). Mapcreated with Region MapGenerator.
7/28/2019 Innovacion Regional 2012 Regions Europa
7/76
7Regional InnovationScoreboard 2012
innovation support programmes better tailored to
meet the needs o individual regions.
The most innovative regions are typically
in the most innovative countries
Most o the regional innovation leaders and innovationollowers are located in the country leaders andollowers identied as such in the Innovation UnionScoreboard (IUS) 2011. The results do highlightseveral regions in weaker perorming countries beingmuch more innovative:
Praha (CZ01) is an innovation leader within the Czech
Republic (a moderate innovator); Attiki (GR3) is an innovation ollower where Greece is
a moderate innovator;
Kzp-Magyarorszg (HU1) is the most innovativeregion in Hungary;
Mazowieckie (Warsaw) (PL12) ) is the most innovativeregion in Poland;
Lisboa (PT17) is an innovation leader in Portugal (amoderate innovator).
Bucuresti Ilov (RO32), a moderate innovator, is muchmore innovative than any other Romanian region;
East o England (UKH) and South East (UKJ) areinnovation leaders within the UK. Northern Ireland
(UKN) lags behind being a moderate innovator andall other regions are innovation ollowers.
In Croatia (a moderate innovator), SjeverozapadnaHvratska (Zagreb) (HR01) is an innovation ollower.
Regions have dierent strengths and
weaknesses
Three groups o regions can be identied based on theirrelative perormance on Enablers, Firm activities andOutputs. The majority o innovation leaders and highperorming innovation ollowers are characterised by a
balanced perormance structure whereas the majority othe moderate and modest innovators are characterisedby an imbalanced perormance structure. Regionswishing to improve their innovation perormance shouldthus pursue a more balanced perormance structure.
Regional perormance appears relatively
stable
Between 2007 and 2011 regional perormance isquite stable with only a relatively small number oregions moving rom one broader perormance group
to the other. More changes are observed at the level
o the 12 subgroups and 8 regions have demonstrated
a continuous improvement by moving to a highersubgroup in both 2009 and 2011: Niedersachsen(DE9), Bassin Parisien (FR2), Ouest (FR5), Calabria(ITF6), Sardegna (ITG2), Mazowieckie (PL12), Lisboa(PT17) and Ticino (CH07).
Regional research and innovation
potential through EU unding
There are remarkable dierences in the use o EUunds across EU regions. There are 4 typologieso regions absorbing and leveraging EU unds:
Framework Programme leading absorbers,Structural Funds leading users, ull users/absorbers but at low levels, and low users/absorbers.
The results suggest that Structural Funds and FPare complementary types o unding targeting arather speciic, but comparatively dierent set oregions. Whereas capital regions in the EU15 arelargely FP leading absorbers or low users/absorbersin both periods, there is no much dierentiationbetween capital regions and all other regions in theEU12. The latter were mainly low users/absorbers inthe period 2000-06 (96%) and ull users/absorbers
(50%) in 2007-13.
We nd a relatively even distribution o shares o high,medium and low innovators in low absorber/user regionsand ull absorber/user regions. A majority o FP leadingabsorbers in FP6 were innovation leaders or innovationollowers in 2007 and 2011. In contrast, a majority oall SF leading user regions in the period 2000-06 werealso modest innovators in 2007 and 2011. The resultsshow a lack o common characteristics/patterns linkinginnovation perormance and the use o EU unds inregions across time.
There is a need or more disaggregated analyses othe impact o EU unding on innovation perormanceand that such analyses need to be built arounda model that takes into account a broad set opotential variables aecting perormance overa longer time period. Moreover and needless tosay, the SFs are an instrument that is signiicantlyeasier to control by the regions than FP. In practice,the SF can und activities normally unded byresearch programmes thus supporting researchexcellence objectives without the obligation to
orm international research consortia as in FP.
7/28/2019 Innovacion Regional 2012 Regions Europa
8/76
Regional InnovationScoreboard 20128
1. IntroductionInnovation is a key actor determining productivity
growth. Understanding the sources and patterns oinnovative activity in the economy is undamentalto develop better policies. The Innovation UnionScoreboard (IUS) benchmarks on a yearly basis theinnovation perormance o Member States, drawingon statistics rom a variety o sources, including theCommunity Innovation Survey. It is increasingly used asa reerence point by innovation policy makers acrossthe EU.
The IUS benchmarks perormance at the level oMember States, but innovation plays an increasing
role in regional development, both in the Lisbonstrategy and in Cohesion Policy. Regions areincreasingly becoming important engines o economicdevelopment. Geographical proximity matters inbusiness perormance and in the creation o innovation.Recognising this, innovation policy is increasinglydesigned and implemented at regional level. However,despite some advances, there is an absence o regionaldata on innovation indicators which could help regionalpolicy makers design and monitor innovation policies.
The European Regional Innovation Scoreboard (RIS)addresses this gap and provides statistical acts
on regions innovation perormance. In 2002 and2003 under the European Commissions EuropeanTrend Chart on Innovation two Regional InnovationScoreboards have been published. Both reportsocused on the regional innovation perormance o theEU15 Member States using a more limited number oindicators as compared to the European InnovationScoreboard (EIS). In 2006 a Regional InnovationScoreboard was published providing an update o bothearlier reports by using more recent data and alsoincluding the regions rom the New Member States butwith an even more limited set o data as regional CIS
data were not available.
Following the revision o the EIS in 2008, the 2009 RISwas using as many o the EIS indicators at the regionallevel or all EU Member States and Norway includingregional data rom the Community Innovation Survey(CIS) where available. The 2009 RIS paid more attentionto wider measures o innovation including amongothers non-R&D and non-technological innovation. Forthe 2009 RIS or the rst time regional CIS data havebeen collected (directly rom most but not all MemberStates) on a large scale.
This 2012 RIS report provides both an update o
the 2009 RIS report and it resembles the revisedInnovation Union Scoreboard (IUS) at the regionallevel. Regions are ranked in our groups o regionsshowing dierent levels o regional innovationperormance. These peer groupings are derived romregional data and do not directly correspond to thecountry groupings in the IUS.
For all regions we will identiy regions withcomparable perormance patterns within each o theclusters. The purpose o this analysis is to provideregions with additional inormation about their
relative strengths and weaknesses.
The European Regional Competitiveness Index (RCI)maps economic perormance and competitiveness atthe NUTS 2 regional level or all EU Member States.Innovation is a key driver o competitiveness and wewill establish a link between regions perormance inthe RIS and RCI using correlation analyses.
In section 2 we will briey discuss the availabilityo regional data, the indicators that are availableor the RIS and the regions or which regional CISdata are available. Section 3 presents two sets o
results, one identiying groups o regions with similarlevels o innovation perormance and the otheridentiying groups o regions with similar relativepatterns o innovation perormance. For each regiongroup membership or both the absolute and relativeperormance analysis is provided in ull detail inAnnex 1. Section 4 summarizes the methodologyor calculating regional composite indicator and orimputing missing data. Section 5 concludes.
Section 6 provides a separate analysis on therelationship between the use o two main EU
unding instruments and innovation perormance:the Framework Programmes or Research andTechnological Development (FP6, FP7) and theStructural Funds.
7/28/2019 Innovacion Regional 2012 Regions Europa
9/76
9Regional InnovationScoreboard 2012
2. Indicators and data availability2.1 Indicators
The Regional Innovation Scoreboard (RIS) includesregional data or 12 o the 24 indicators used inthe IUS. For the other IUS indicators regional dataare not available. The denition o the indicators isidentical to the IUS or 7 o these indicators, whileor 5 indicators there is some dierence as shownin Table 1. The indicator measuring the educationalattainment o the population uses a broader agegroup, the CIS indicators on non-R&D innovation
2.2 Data availabilityOverall data availability depends on the availabilityo regional CIS data. As highlighted in Annex 3, mosto the missing data are CIS data. In particular orCroatia, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlandsand Switzerland data availability is poor as orthese countries regional CIS data are not available.Regional CIS data requests were made to 20countries in April-May 20101 and 16 countriesprovided regional in May-June 20112. For Croatia,
Denmark and Switzerland a regional CIS datarequest was not submitted as at the time o ling
expenditures and the sales share o new innovativeproducts reer to SMEs only and the IUS indicator onemployment in knowledge-intensive activities hasbeen replaced with an indicator capturing employ-ment in medium-high and high-tech manuacturingand knowledge-intensive services. The indicators areexplained in detail in Annex 1.
these requests it was thought that these countrieswould not be included in the RIS.
Overall data availability is perect or Belgium,Czech Republic, Romania and Slovakia, very goodor Bulgaria, Finland, Poland, Portugal, Sloveniaand Spain, good or Austria, France, Hungary andUK, relatively good or Italy, Norway and Sweden,relatively poor or Germany, Greece, Ireland and
the Netherlands and poor or Croatia, Denmark andSwitzerland.
1 Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and UK.2 Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Hungary, Italy, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.
7/28/2019 Innovacion Regional 2012 Regions Europa
10/76
Regional InnovationScoreboard 201210
Table 1: A comparison o the indicators included in IUS and RIS
Innovation Union Scoreboard Regional Innovation Scoreboard
ENABLERS
Human resources1.1.1 New doctorate graduates (ISCED 6) per 1000 population aged 25-34 No regional data available
1.1.2 Percentage population aged 30-34 having completed tertiary educationPercentage population aged 25-64 having
completed tertiary education
1.1.3 Percentage youth aged 20-24 having attained at least upper secondary level education No regional data available
Open, excellent and attractive research systems
1.2.1 International scientic co-publications per million population No regional data available
1.2.2 Scientic publications among the top 10% most cited publications worldwide as % o totalscientic publications o the country
No regional data available
1.2.3 Non-EU doctorate students as a % o all doctorate students No regional data available
Finance and support
1.3.1 R&D expenditure in the public sector as % o GDP Identical
1.3.2 Venture capital (early stage, expansion and replacement) as % o GDP No regional data available
FIRM ACTIVITIES
Firm investments
2.1.1 R&D expenditure in the business sector as % o GDP Identical
2.1.2 Non-R&D innovation expenditures as % o turnover Similar (only or SMEs)
Linkages & entrepreneurship
2.2.1 SMEs innovating in-house as % o SMEs Identical
2.2.2 Innovative SMEs collaborating with others as % o SMEs Identical
2.2.3 Public-private co-publications per million population Identical
Intellectual assets2.3.1 PCT patent applications per billion GDP (in PPS)
EPO patent applications per billion regional
GDP (PPS)
2.3.2 PCT patent applications in societal challenges per billion GDP (in PPS) No regional data available
2.3.3 Community trademarks per billion GDP (in PPS) No regional data available
2.3.4 Community designs per billion GDP (in PPS) No regional data available
OUTPUTS
Innovators
3.1.1 SMEs introducing product or process innovations as % o SMEs Identical
3.1.2 SMEs introducing marketing or organisational innovations as % o SMEs Identical
3.1.3 High-growth innovative rms indicator not yet included No regional data available
Economic eects
3.2.1 Employment in knowledge-intensive activities (manuacturing and services) as % o totalemployment
Employment in knowledge-intensive services
+ Employment in medium-high/high-tech
manuacturing as % o total workorce
3.2.2 Medium and high-tech product exports as % total product exports No regional data available
3.2.3 Knowledge-intensive services exports as % total service exports No regional data available
3.2.4 Sales o new to market and new to rm innovations as % o turnover Similar (only or SMEs)
3.2.5 License and patent revenues rom abroad as % o GDP No regional data available
7/28/2019 Innovacion Regional 2012 Regions Europa
11/76
11Regional InnovationScoreboard 2012
Table 2: Regional coverage
3 In the IUS 2011 Cyprus, Estonia and Luxembourg are innovation ollowers, Malta is a moderate innovator and Latvia and Lithuania are modest innovators.
2.3 Regional coverageBased on regional data availability the analysis willcover 190 regions or 21 EU Member States, Croatia,Norway and Switzerland at dierent NUTS levelswith 55 NUTS 1 level regions and 135 NUTS 2 level
Country NUTS Regions
1 2
Austria 3 Oststerreich (AT1), Sdsterreich (AT2), Weststerreich (AT3)
Belgium 3 Rgion de Bruxelles-Capitale / Brussels Hoodstedel ijk Gewest (BE1), Vlaams Gewest (BE2), Rgion Wallonne (BE3)
Bulgaria 2 Severna i iztochna Bulgaria (BG3), Yugozapadna i yuzhna tsentralna Bulgaria (BG4)
Croatia 3 Sjeverozapadna Hrvatska (HR01), Sredisnja i Istocna (Panonska) Hrvatska (HR02), Jadranska Hrvatska (HR03)
Czech Republic 8Praha (CZ01), Stredn Cechy (CZ02), Jihozpad (CZ03), Severozpad (CZ04), Severovchod (CZ05), Jihovchod (CZ06),Stredn Morava (CZ07), Moravskoslezsko (CZ08)
Denmark 5 Hovedstaden (DK01), Sjlland (DK02), Syddanmark (DK03), Midtjylland (DK04), Nordjylland (DK05)
Finland 1 4 It-Suomi (FI13), Etel-Suomi (FI18), Lnsi-Suomi (FI19), Pohjois-Suomi (FI1A), land (FI2)
France 9le de France (FR1), Bassin Parisien (FR2), Nord - Pas-de-Calais (FR3), Est (FR) (FR4), Ouest (FR) (FR5), Sud-Ouest (FR)(FR6), Centre-Est (FR) (FR7), Mditerrane (FR8), French overseas departments (FR) (FR9)
Germany 16Baden-Wrttemberg (DE1), Bayern (DE2), Berlin (DE3), Brandenburg (DE4), Bremen (DE5), Hamburg (DE6), Hessen(DE7), Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (DE8), Niedersachsen (DE9), Nordrhein-Westalen (DEA), Rheinland-Palz (DEB),Saarland (DEC), Sachsen (DED), Sachsen-Anhalt (DEE), Schleswig-Holstein (DEF), Thringen (DEG)
Greece 4 Voreia Ellada (GR1), Kentriki Ellada (GR2), Attiki (GR3), Nisia Aigaiou, Kriti (GR4)
Hungary 1 6Kzp-Magyarorszg (HU1), Kzp-Dunntl (HU21), Nyugat-Dunntl (HU22), Dl-Dunntl (HU23), szak-Magyarorszg (HU31), szak-Alld (HU32), Dl-Alld (HU33)
Ireland 2 Border, Midland and Western (IE01), Southern and Eastern (IE02)
Italy 21
Piemonte (ITC1), Valle d'Aosta/Valle d'Aoste (ITC2), Liguria (ITC3), Lombardia (ITC4), Provincia Autonoma Bolzano/Bozen (ITD1), Provincia Autonoma Trento (ITD2), Veneto (ITD3), Friuli-Venezia Giulia (ITD4), Emilia-Romagna (ITD5),
Toscana (ITE1), Umbria (ITE2), Marche (ITE3), Lazio (ITE4), Abruzzo (ITF1), Molise (ITF2), Campania (ITF3), Puglia (ITF4),Basilicata (ITF5), Calabria (ITF6), Sicilia (ITG1), Sardegna (ITG2)
Netherlands 12Groningen (NL11), Friesland (NL) (NL12), Drenthe (NL13), Overijssel (NL21), Gelderland (NL22), Flevoland (NL23), Utrecht(NL31), Noord-Holland (NL32), Zuid-Holland (NL33), Zeeland (NL34), Noord-Brabant (NL41), Limburg (NL) (NL42)
Norway 7Oslo og Akershus (NO01), Hedmark og Oppland (NO02), Sr-stlandet (NO03), Agder og Rogaland (NO04), Vestlandet(NO05), Trndelag (NO06), Nord-Norge (NO07)
Poland 16Ldzkie (PL11), Mazowieckie (PL12), Malopolskie (PL21), Slaskie (PL22), Lubelskie (PL31), Podkarpackie (PL32),Swietokrzyskie (PL33), Podlaskie (PL34), Wielkopolskie (PL41), Zachodniopomorskie (PL42), Lubuskie (PL43),Dolnoslaskie (PL51), Opolskie (PL52), Kujawsko-Pomorskie (PL61), Warminsko-Mazurskie (PL62), Pomorskie (PL63)
Portugal 2 5Norte (PT11), Algarve (PT15), Centro (PT) (PT16), Lisboa (PT17), Alentejo (PT18), Regio Autnoma dos Aores (PT)(PT2), Regio Autnoma da Madeira (PT) (PT3)
Romania 8Nord-Vest (RO11), Centru (RO12), Nord-Est (RO21), Sud-Est (RO22), Sud - Muntenia (RO31), Bucuresti - Ilov (RO32),Sud-Vest Oltenia (RO41), Vest (RO42)
Slovakia 4 Bratislavsk kraj (SK01), Zpadn Slovensko (SK02), Stredn Slovensko (SK03), Vchodn Slovensko (SK04)
Slovenia 2 Vzhodna Slovenija (SI01), Zahodna Slovenija (SI02)
Spain 2 17
Galicia (ES11), Principado de Asturias (ES12), Cantabria (ES13), Pas Vasco (ES21), Comunidad Foral de Navarra(ES22), La Rioja (ES23), Aragn (ES24), Comunidad de Madrid (ES3), Castilla y Len (ES41), Castilla-la Mancha (ES42),Extremadura (ES43), Catalua (ES51), Comunidad Valenciana (ES52), Illes Balears (ES53), Andaluca (ES61), Regin deMurcia (ES62), Ciudad Autnoma de Ceuta (ES) (ES63), Ciudad Autnoma de Melilla (ES) (ES64), Canarias (ES) (ES7)
Sweden 8Stockholm (SE11), stra Mellansverige (SE12), Smland med arna (SE21), Sydsverige (SE22), Vstsverige (SE23),Norra Mellansverige (SE31), Mellersta Norrland (SE32), vre Norrland (SE33)
Switzerland 7Rgion lmanique (CH01), Espace Mittelland (CH02), Nordwestschweiz (CH03), Zrich (CH04), Ostschweiz (CH05),Zentralschweiz (CH06), Ticino (CH07)
UK 12North East (UK) (UKC), North West (UK) (UKD), Yorkshire and The Humber (UKE), East Midlands (UK) (UKF), WestMidlands (UK) (UKG), East o England (UKH), London (UKI), South East (UK) (UKJ), South West (UK) (UKK), Wales (UKL),Scotland (UKM), Northern Ireland (UK) (UKN)
regions (c. Table 2). The EU Member States Cyprus,Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg and Maltahave not been included as there are no separateregions in these countries3.
7/28/2019 Innovacion Regional 2012 Regions Europa
12/76
Regional InnovationScoreboard 201212
3. Regional innovation perormanceCluster analysis is used to identify regions that share similar innovation systems4. Two
approaches are taken. The first method searches for similarities in absolute performance,or regions that display similar strengths and weaknesses in innovation (Section 3.1).
The second method searches for similarities in the pattern of strengths and weaknesses
(Section 3.3). For example, a region that performed twice as well as another region on every
composite index would have an identical pattern of strengths and weaknesses. In order to
remove the effect of absolute performance in the cluster analysis of similar patterns, the
sum of performance across all composite indices is set to the same value for all regions.
Both approaches have different uses for policy.
The ranking in perormance across the 4 perormancegroups is also observed or the separate compositeindicators or Enablers, Firm activities and Outputs
But whereas there is no overlap in overall innovationperormance between the 4 perormance groups, thereis an overlap in perormance in Enablers, Firm activitiesand Outputs (c. Figure 1). E.g. part o the innovation
Hierarchical cluster analysis using Wards method
distinguishes 4 perormance groups5
based on the overallRegional Innovation Index (RII). For these 4 perormancegroups we nd (over the 3 observation periods 2007,2009 and 2011, i.e. 570 observations or 190 regions)113 innovation leaders, 165 innovation ollowers, 121moderate innovators and 171 modest innovators.
(c. Table 4). Innovation leaders also perorm best ineach o the 3 main innovation groups whereas theModest innovators perorm worst.
ollowers perorm better than several innovationleaders on Enablers and the worst perorming Moderateinnovator perorms worse than the worst perormingModest innovator.
Table 3: A comparison o number o regions between the IUS and RIS perormance groups
Regions
LEADERS FOLLOWERS MODERATE MODESTTOTAL NUMBER
OF REGIONS
Country
group
Leaders 77 39 7 0 123
Followers 32 67 28 2 129
Moderate 4 58 81 133 276
Modest 0 1 5 36 42
Total number o regions 113 165 121 171
Table 4: Perormance characteristics or the 4 perormance groups
LEADERS FOLLOWERS MODERATE MODEST
RII 0.621 0.494 0.395 0.269
Enablers 0.631 0.522 0.407 0.317
Firm activities 0.606 0.469 0.362 0.234
Outputs 0.632 0.506 0.432 0.280
4 Hierarchical clustering with Wards method was used or all cluster analyses.5 The dierence in coeicients values as provided in the agglomeration schedule was used to identiy the optimal number o solutions.
The IUS 2011 innovation leader and innovation ollower
countries include 252 regions whereas there are 286 regionalleaders and ollowers (c. Table 3). Most o the regional lead-ers and ollowers are ound in IUS country innovation leadersand ollowers although we also observe 62 cases o regionalleaders and ollowers in IUS moderate innovator countriesand 1 case in IUS modest innovator countries.
3.1 Innovation perormance analysis Regional Innovation Index
7/28/2019 Innovacion Regional 2012 Regions Europa
13/76
13Regional InnovationScoreboard 2012
Figure 1: Distribution o perormance or the 4 perormance groups
Maps o the regional perormance groups areshown in Figure 2. For 2007, 2009 and 2011 themaps show group membership or each o the 190regions covered in the RIS. Most o the regionalinnovation leaders and ollowers are ound in Austria,Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Finland, Ireland,Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and UK but wealso observe regional innovation ollowers in partso Czech Republic, Italy, Norway and Spain and inindividual regions in Croatia, Greece, Hungary, Poland,Portugal, Romania and Slovakia.
Most o the moderate and modest innovators areound in Eastern and Southern Europe, with mosto the moderate innovators in Czech Republic, Italy,Portugal and Spain, and most o the modest innovatorsin Bulgaria, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Romania,Slovakia and Spain.
7/28/2019 Innovacion Regional 2012 Regions Europa
14/76
Regional InnovationScoreboard 201214
Figure 2: RIS perormance group maps
The EU Member States Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg and Malta are not included in the RIS analysis. Group membership shown isthat o the IUS 2011(Cyprus, Estonia and Luxembourg are innovation ollowers, Malta is a moderate innovator and Latvia and Lithuania are modestinnovators). Maps created with Region Map Generator.
2011
2007 2009
7/28/2019 Innovacion Regional 2012 Regions Europa
15/76
15Regional InnovationScoreboard 2012
Figure 3: RIS and IUS perormance group maps
The EU Member States Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg and Malta are not included in the RIS analysis.Group membership shown is that o the IUS 2011(Cyprus, Estonia and Luxembourg are innovation ollowers, Malta is amoderate innovator and Latvia and Lithuania are modest innovators). Maps created with Region Map Generator.
By comparing regional group membership in 2011with country group membership (c. Figure 3) weobserve the ollowing:
Praha (CZ01) is an innovation leader within theCzech Republic and 3 more Czech regions areinnovation ollowers.
Denmark is an innovation leader mainly by thestrong perormance o Hovedstaden (DK01) andMidtjylland (DK04). The other Danish regions areinnovation ollowers.
12 o the 16 German NUTS-1 regions are innovationleaders. 4 Regions are innovation ollowers are
ound in Eastern and Northern Germany. Attiki (GR3) is an innovation ollower where Greece
is a moderate innovator and the other Greekregions are modest innovators.
Spain is a moderate innovator but there is alarge variance in innovation perormance with 8modest innovators, 6 moderate innovators and 5innovation ollowers.
In France (an innovation ollower), le de France(FR1) and Centre-Est (FR7) are innovation leaders.4 French regions are innovation ollowers, 2 aremoderate innovators and 1 region is a Modest
innovator.
In Italy (a moderate innovator) 12 regions are alsomoderate innovators, 7 regions are innovationollowers and 2 regions are Modest innovators.
Kzp-Magyarorszg (HU1), Hungarys capitalregion, is the most innovative region in Hungaryand all other regions are modest innovators.
In the Netherlands we observe 3 moderate innovators,4 innovation ollowers and 4 innovation leaders.
Oststerreich (Vienna) (AT1) is an innovation leaderwithin Austria.
Poland is a moderate innovator with 15 regionsbeing a modest innovator and Mazowieckie
(Warsaw) (PL12) being a moderate innovator. Lisboa (PT17) is an innovation leader and the most
innovative Portuguese region.
Bucuresti Ilov (RO32), a moderate innovator, ismuch more innovative than any other Romanianregion.
In Slovakia (a moderate innovator) Bratislavskkraj (SK01) is the most innovative region being amoderate innovator. The other regions are modestinnovators.
Finland is an innovation leader, but 2 Finnish regionslag behind in their innovation perormance, in
particular land (FI2) which is a moderate innovator.
RIS 2012 region groups IUS 2011 country groups
7/28/2019 Innovacion Regional 2012 Regions Europa
16/76
Regional InnovationScoreboard 201216
In Sweden we nd 5 innovation leaders, 2
innovation ollowers and 1 moderate innovator. East o England (UKH) and South East (UKJ) are
innovation leaders within the UK. Northern Ireland(UKN) lags behind being a moderate innovator andall other regions are innovation ollowers.
Almost all Swiss regions are innovation leaders.Only Ostschweiz (CH05) is an innovationollower.
For Norway 5 regions are an innovation ollower,
The perormance results appear relatively stableover time (as can be seen rom a visual inspectiono Figure 2). But between 2007 and 2011 we dond changes in overall group membership acrossEurope in as many as 14 European countries with42 changes in regional group membership (c.Annex 1). Most o these are positive changes with 9innovation ollowers becoming an innovation leader,13 moderate innovators becoming an innovation
ollower and 13 modest innovators becoming a
1 region is a moderate innovator and 1 region is a
modest innovator. In Croatia (a moderate innovator), Sjeverozapadna
Hvratska (Zagreb) (HR01) is an innovation ollower.
These ndings conrm that capital regions are moreinnovative than non-capital regions. This is alsoconrmed in Figure 4 below which shows the dierencein perormance between capital and non-capitalregions in each o the countries with at least 3 regions.
moderate innovator. But we also observe 7 negativechanges, with 2 innovation leaders slipping downto becoming an innovation ollower, 2 innovationollowers becoming a moderate innovator and 3moderate innovators becoming a modest innovator(c. Annex 2 showing group membership or eachregion or 2007, 2009 and 2011).
Figure 4: A comparison o capital regions with non-capital regions
7/28/2019 Innovacion Regional 2012 Regions Europa
17/76
17Regional InnovationScoreboard 2012
3.2 A urther renement o the cluster groups
The identiied perormance groups correlate wellwith the IUS perormance groups but, with 190regions covered, provide insuicient detail toobserve dierences in regional perormance. Thesame clustering technique (Hierarchical clustering,Wards method) has thereore been applied to
each o the 4 perormance groups and withineach group 3 urther subgroups could be deined.For reasons o simplicity, we label these as high,medium and low innovating regions. In total wethus have 12 perormance groups as summarizedin Table 5.
Within each perormance group we ind relativelyequal shares o high, medium and low innovators.We also observe more variation across the years,with e.g. the number o high leading innovatorsincreasing rom 10 in 2007 to 13 in 2009. Thesemore detailed groups are shown in regional mapsin Figure 5. A comparison o the maps shows amuch higher degree o variation in innovation
perormance over time at the regional level than atthe country level where perormance groups haveproven to be stable over time (c. IUS 2011 report).A small number o 8 regions show a continuousimprovement over time as shown in Table 6. BassinParisien (FR2), Calabria (ITF6) and Mazowieckie(PL12) show this continuous improvement withintheir broader perormance group.
Table 5: 12 regional perormance groups
2007 Leader Follower Moderate Modest Total number o regions
High 10 24 18 21 73
Medium 9 13 10 21 53
Low 15 17 12 20 64
Total number o regions 34 54 40 62 190
2009 Leader Follower Moderate Modest Total number o regions
High 11 18 14 16 59
Medium 12 20 16 24 72
Low 15 15 12 17 59
Total number o regions 38 53 42 57 190
2011 Leader Follower Moderate Modest Total number o regions
High 13 27 18 16 74
Medium 17 14 9 17 57Low 11 17 12 19 59
Total number o regions 41 58 39 52 190
Table 6: Continuous improvement in regional innovation perormance
2007 2009 2011
DE9 Niedersachsen Follower - high Leader - low Leader - medium
FR2 Bassin Parisien Moderate - low Moderate- medium Moderate- high
FR5 Ouest Moderate - medium Moderate- high Follower - low
ITF6 Calabria Modest - low Modest - medium Modest - high
ITG2 Sardegna Modest - medium Modest - high Moderate low
PL12 Mazowieckie Moderate - low Moderate- medium Moderate- high
PT17 Lisboa Follower - medium Follower - high Leader - low
CH07 Ticino Follower - high Leader - low Leader - medium
7/28/2019 Innovacion Regional 2012 Regions Europa
18/76
Regional InnovationScoreboard 201218
Figure 5: RIS detailed perormance group maps
The EU Member States Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg and Malta are not included in the RIS analysis. In the IUS 2011 Cyprus, Estoniaand Luxembourg are innovation ollowers, Malta is a moderate innovator and Latvia and Lithuania are modest innovators. Map created with RegionMap Generator.
2011
2007 2009
7/28/2019 Innovacion Regional 2012 Regions Europa
19/76
19Regional InnovationScoreboard 2012
In this section we compare the Regional Innovation Indexand the Regional Competitiveness Index (RCI) (Annoni andKozovska, 2010)6. First we briey discuss the denition oregional competitiveness and the construction o the RCI.
Dening regional competitiveness
Many authors, with Krugman (1996)7 and Porter(Porter and Ketels, 2003)8 among others, agree on thedenition o competitiveness as productivity, which ismeasured by the value o goods and services producedby a nation per unit o human, capital and naturalresources. They see as the main goal o a nation the
production o high and raising standard o living or itscitizens which depends essentially on the productivitywith which a nations resources are employed.However, regional competitiveness cannot be regardedas a macroeconomic concept. A region is neither a simpleaggregation o rms nor a scaled version o nations(Gardiner et al., 2004)9. Hence, regional competitivenessis not simply resulting rom a stable macroeconomicramework or entrepreneurship on the micro-level. Newpatterns o competition are recognizable, especiallyat the regional level: or example, geographicalconcentrations o linked industries, like clusters, are oincreasing importance and the availability o knowledge
and technology based tools show high variability withincountries (Annoni and Kozovska, RCI 2010 report).An interesting broad denition o regional competitivenessis the one reported by Meyer-Stamer (2008, p. 7)10:
We can defne (systemic) competitiveness o a
territory as the ability o a locality or region to generate
high and rising incomes and improve livelihoods o the
people living there.
This denition, on which the RCI index is build upon, ocuseson the close link between regional competitiveness and
regional prosperity, characterizing competitive regionsnot only by output-related terms such as productivity butalso by overall economic perormance such as sustainedor improved level o comparative prosperity (Bristow,2005)11. Huggins (2003)12 underlines, in act, that truelocal and regional competitiveness occurs only whensustainable growth is achieved at labour rates thatenhance overall standards o living.
Construction o the RCIThe main goal o the European Regional Competi-tiveness Index is to map economic perormance andcompetitiveness at the NUTS 2 regional level or all EUMember States. On the basis o existing competitive-ness studies discussed in the RCI 2010 report (Annoniand Kozovska, 2010), an ideal ramework or RCI isproposed which includes eleven major pillars. The re-erence or these eleven pillars is the well-establishedGlobal Competitiveness Index (GCI), published yearly bythe World Economic Forum (WEF). The pillars includedin the RCI ramework are13:
1. Institutions2. Macroeconomic Stability3. Inrastructure4. Health5. Quality o Primary and Secondary Education6. Higher Education/Training and Lielong Learning7. Labour Market Eciency8. Market Size9. Technological Readiness10. Business Sophistication11. Innovation
The RCI is set up based upon values computed orthese eleven dierent pillars. For a detailed discussionon the computation o these pillar values and on whichindicators they are based we reer to the RCI Report2010 (Annoni and Kozovska, 2010 pp. 59-205).
The RCI urthermore controls or the degree oheterogeneity on the development stage o Europeanregions. This approach is based on a similar methodthe WEF adopts or the GCI (Schwab and Porter, 2007;Schwab, 2009). In the RCI case, regional economiesare divided into medium, transition and high
stage o development. The development stage o theregions is computed on the basis o the regional GDPat current market prices (year 2007) measured as PPPper inhabitants and expressed as percentage o theEU average GDP%. EU regions are then classiedinto three groups o medium, transition or high stageaccording to a GDP% respectively lower than 75%,between 75% and 100% and above 100%.
6 Annoni , P. and K. Kozovska (2010), EU Regional Competitiveness Index 2010, EUR 24346 EN 2010.7 Krugman, P. (1996), Making sense o the competitiveness debate, Oxord Review o Economic Policy 12(3): 17-25.8
Porter, M.E. and Ketels, C.H.M. (2003), UK Competitiveness: moving to the next stage. Institute o strategy and competitiveness, Harvard Business School: DTIEconomics paper n. 3.
9 Gardiner, B., Martin, R., Tyler, P. (2004), Competitiveness, Productivity and Economic Growth across the European Regions, Regional Studies 38: 1045-1067.10 Meyer-Stamer, J. (2008), Systematic Competitiveness and Local Economic Development. In Shamin Bodhanya (ed.), Large Scale Systemic Change: Theories,
Modelling and Practices.11 Bristow, G. (2005), Everyones a winner: problematising the discourse o regional competitiveness, Journal o Economic Geography 5: 285-304.12 Huggins, R. (2003), Creating a UK Competitiveness Index: regional and local benchmarking, Regional Studies 37(1): 89-96.13 The GCI also includes Goods market eiciency and Financial market as pillars, but they have been excluded in the RCI. Furthermore GCI combines Health and
Primary education in one pillar, RCI separates the two. For a discussion on this see the RCI 2010 report (Annoni and Kozovska, 2010 pp. 28-29)
3.3 Comparison with the Regional Competitiveness Index
7/28/2019 Innovacion Regional 2012 Regions Europa
20/76
Regional InnovationScoreboard 201220
The eleven pillars are subdivided in three groups opillars, mostly coinciding with the WEF groups. The rstgroup o pillars includes Institutions, MacroeconomicStability, Inrastructure, Health, and Quality o Primaryand Secondary Education (see Table 8). These areconsidered as actors which are strictly necessary
or the basic unctioning o any economy. The simpleaverage o these pillars gives the rst competitivenesssub-index. Except or the pillar Macroeconomic Stabilitythe expectation is that this rst group does not have astrong correlation with the RIS.The second group o pillars includes Higher Education/Training and Lielong Learning, Labour Market Eciencyand Market Size. They describe an economy which ismore sophisticated, with a higher potential skilledlabour orce and a structured labour market. Thesepillars are used or the computation (simple average)o the second pillar group. We expect this pillar groupto be somewhat related to one o the main type o
RIS indicators enablers and more specically itsdimension, Human Resources.The last group o pillars comprises all the high tech
and innovation related pillars: Technological Readiness,Business Sophistication and Innovation. A region withhigh scores in these sectors is expected to have the mostcompetitive economy. The RIS is expected to correlatestrong and signicantly with this last pillar group.Given the pillar classication, EU regions are assigned
dierent weights according to their developmentstage. The set o weights assigned or the RCIcomputation stems rom the WEF approach with somemodications to accommodate or the act that EUregions do not show the same level o heterogeneity,in terms o stages o development, as the countriescovered by WEF.The regions classied into the medium stage areassigned the weights that WEF assigns to the eciency-driven economy (corresponding to the WEF intermediategroup), while the weights o the high stage are thosewhich WEF uses or the innovative-driven economy. Theweights o the transition stage o development have
been chosen as the middle point between the weightso the rst and third stages. Table 8 displays the pillar-groups and the development stage weights.
Table 7: Thresholds (% GDP) or the denition o stages o development
Table 8: The 11 pillars o RCI classied into three groups and weighting scheme or each development stage
Stage o development % o GDP (PPP/inhabitants
Medium < 75
Transition 75 and < 100
High 100
Weights assigned according to the region stage
MEDIUM STAGE TRANSITION STAGE HIGH STAGE
First pillar-group (Basic)
- Institutions
0.4 0.3 0.2
- Macroeconomic stability
- Inrastructure
- Health
- Quality o primary and secondary education
Second pillar-group (Eciency)
- Higher education and training
0.5 0.5 0.5- Labour market eciency
- Market size
Third pillar-group (Innovation)
- Technological readiness
0.1 0.2 0.3- Business sophistication
- Innovation
7/28/2019 Innovacion Regional 2012 Regions Europa
21/76
21Regional InnovationScoreboard 2012
Figure 6: Scatter plot o RII 2011 and RCI 2010
Figure 7: Scatter plot o RII 2011 and RCI 2010Innovation pillar
Figure 8: Scatter plot o RII Firm activities and RCI 2010Innovation pillar
It can be seen that or all development stages the
highest weight is assigned to the second pillar group. Theimportance o the rst group o pillar decreases goingrom medium to high stage o development, while thelast pillar group is correspondingly gaining importance.
Correlation o the RIS and RCI
As can be seen in Figure 6, the RIS and RCI are strong andpositively related. The partial correlation, controlling orregional levels o GDP, is 0.655. The relationship between
The positive and signicant correlation o the RIS andthe RCI stems mostly rom the third pillar group o theRCI. This third pillar group has strong links with the RIS(c. Figure 7).The partial correlation o the RIS and the third pillar is0.706. This is mainly due to the act that the underlying
these two indexes can be seen as respectively cause and
eect rather than a one way direction. The competitiveperormance o a region and its innovative perormancestrongly rely on its knowledge intensive employment. Hugginsand Davies (2006)14 have characterized this two-oldrelationship as ollows: i) highly educated population is a keyingredient or business perormances; ii) regions which arecompetitive in terms o creativity, economic perormanceand accessibility also tend to host high value-added andknowledge intensive employment (Huggins and Davies, 2006).
indicators o the third pillar group are similar to thethree main RIS indicators. For instance the third pillaris very strongly and positively correlated with RIS rmactivities (partial correlation o 0.702) (c. Figure 8).This is due to similar indicators used or the innovationpillar (patent applications and scientic publications).
14 Huggins, R., Davies, W. (2006) European Competitiveness Index 2006-07. University o Wales Institute, Cardi UWIC: Robert Huggins Associates Ltd.
http://www.cforic.org/downloads.php
7/28/2019 Innovacion Regional 2012 Regions Europa
22/76
Regional InnovationScoreboard 201222
The third pillar has the weakest positive relationship withRIS Outputs with a partial correlation o 0.381 (Figure 10).However, these indices do both use a similar indicatoron an important determinant o the positive relationshipbetween the RIS and RCI, namely; Employment intechnology and knowledge-intensive sectors.
3.4 Relative perormance analysisThis section identiies regions with similarpatterns o innovation perormance. The sum operormance across the composite indexes orEnablers, Firm activities and Outputs has beenadjusted to equal the same value o 3 across allregions in order to exclude absolute dierencesin perormance between regions.
The third pillar group is also positively related to RIS
Enablers (partial correlation o 0.510) as a result o
As can be seen in Table 8, irm activities, as oneo the three main indicators o the RIS, has thestrongest links with individual pillar groups and theRCI.
Based on their relative perormance we can identiy3 groups o regions using hierarchical cluster analysis(Wards method). The rst group includes 266 regionswith a balanced perormance structure (c. Figures 11and 12). The second group includes 171 regions havinga signicant strength in Enablers. The third groupincludes 133 regions having a signicant strength inOutputs (and a signicant weakness in Enablers).
similar indicators on higher educated population and
public R&D expenditures.
Figure 9: Scatter plot o RII Enablers and RCI 2010Innovation pillar
Figure 10: Scatter plot o RII Outputs and RCI 2010Innovation pillar
Table 8: Partial correlations RIS and RCI
RCI 1st pillar
Basic
RCI 2nd pillar
Efciency
RCI 3rd pillar
InnovationRCI weighted
RIS Enablers .336 .358 .510 .440
RIS Firm activities .682 .530 .702 .696
RIS Outputs .280 .227 .381 .323
RIS RII .596 .498 .706 .655
Note: All correlations are signicant at 1%. 260 observations, control variable is per capita GDP.
7/28/2019 Innovacion Regional 2012 Regions Europa
23/76
23Regional InnovationScoreboard 2012
A comparison o the regional innovation perormancegroups and the relative perormance groups shows thatthe majority o innovation leaders and high perorminginnovation ollowers are characterised by a balancedperormance structure. The majority o the moderate
innovators have a relative strength in outputs andthe majority o the modest innovators have a relativestrength in enablers. Regions wishing to improve theirinnovation perormance should thus pursue a morebalanced perormance structure15.
Figure 11: Relative strengths and weaknesses
15 A similar result at the country level was reported in Arundel, A. and H. Hollanders, "Innovation Strengths and Weaknesses", European Trend Chart on
Innovation Technical Paper, Brussels: European Commission, DG Enterprise and Industry, December 2005.
Table 9: Matching absolute and relative perormance groups
Balanced perormers Enablers strength Outputs strength Total number o regions
INNOVATION LEADERS
Total number o regions 73 18 22 113
High 25 2 7 34
Medium 23 6 9 38
Low 25 10 6 41
INNOVATION FOLLOWERS
Total number o regions 90 42 33 165
High 42 15 12 69
Medium 24 12 11 47
Low 24 15 10 49
MODERATE INNOVATORS
Total number o regions 40 38 43 121
High 15 15 20 50
Medium 13 12 10 35
Low 12 11 13 36
MODEST INNOVATORS
Total number o regions 63 73 35 171
High 21 21 11 53
Medium 16 30 16 62
Low 26 22 8 56
7/28/2019 Innovacion Regional 2012 Regions Europa
24/76
Regional InnovationScoreboard 201224
Figure 12: Maps relative perormance
The EU Member States Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg and Malta are not included in the RIS analysis.
2011
2007 2009
7/28/2019 Innovacion Regional 2012 Regions Europa
25/76
25Regional InnovationScoreboard 2012
4. Methodology
4.1 Imputation o missing dataFor many regions data are not available or all indicators.For a representative comparison o perormance acrossregions using composite indicators we should have100% data availability whereas average regionaldata availability or RIS regions is 70%. Beore theimputation there are 2058 out o a total o 6840
values missing, meaning that 30% o the cells areempty. The imputation procedure is implementedentirely in Excel using linear regression and anotherhierarchical procedure. Full details are provided in theRIS 2009 Methodology report.
Not only regional values are missing but also values atnational level, whilst all values or the EU27 aggregateare available. The imputation is based on the ollowingprocedure:
Consider a missing value or indicator Y in region Ror a given year, e.g. Y-2009.
IF a value is available or Y-2011 in region R, THENapply linear regression between Y-2009 andY-2011 ELSE{nd the indicator Z with the highest correlationwith Y (Z can span both years).IF correlation between Y and Z is > 0.6 AND avalue is available or Z in R THENapply linear regression between Y and Z.}
Afer regression, not all o the missing values couldbe imputed. Regression was not successul as manyregions have missing values or the pairs o indicatorsthat are employed in the regression.
The remaining values are imputed using a hierarchicalprocedure, which rst imputes missing values atnational level using values at EU27 level and, in a
second phase, imputes missing values at regionallevel using values at national level. The procedure isillustrated hereafer.
The procedure calculates or each indicator Y, wherepossible, the ratios between the values o Y or country
C and or EU27. Then, the median16
ratio across theindicators is calculated. The missing value or indicatorZ in country C is imputed by assuming that or Z themedian ratio just computed applies between C andEU27. Given that all values or EU27 are available, allmissing values at national level can be imputed.
The procedure calculates or each indicator Y, wherepossible, the ratios between the values o Y or regionR and or country C. Then, the median ratio across theindicators is calculated. The missing value or indicatorZ in country R is imputed by assuming that or Z themedian ratio just computed applies between R and C.
Given that all national values all available, all missingvalues at regional level can be imputed.
4.2 Composite indicatorsThe regional innovation indexes have been calculated asa weighted average o the 12 indicators. The approachresembles a mix o the methodology used in the RIS2009 and the IUS 2011. In the RIS 2009 a weightingschedule was used which reected the overall weightso Enablers, Firm activities and Outputs and the overallweights o the CIS indicators in the EIS 2009. Applying
a similar weighting scheme to the RIS 2011 would givethe indicator weights as shown in Table 10.
16 It was decided to consider the median values instead o the mean value, as the distribution o the ratios contained, in some instances, some outliers.
The methodology used for the Regional Innovation Scoreboard is fully described in
an accompanying methodology report which is available as a thematic paper at theEuropean Commission website (http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/policy/
regional-innovation/index_en.htm ).
7/28/2019 Innovacion Regional 2012 Regions Europa
26/76
Regional InnovationScoreboard 201226
Table 10: Indicator weights using RIS 2009 methodology
Weight in
Enablers
Weight o
Enablers in IUS
Weight o
indicator in RIS
1.1.2 Percentage population aged 25-64having completed tertiary education
1/2 8/24 16.67%
1.3.1 R&D expenditure in the public sectoras % o regional GDP
1/2 8/24 16.67%
Weight o
non-CIS
indicators in
Firm activities
Weight o
indicator
in non-CIS
indicators
Weight in
Firm activities
Weight o
Firm activities
in IUS
Weight o
indicator in RIS
2.1.1 R&D expenditure in the businesssector as % o regional GDP
2/3 1/3 2/9 9/24 8.33%
2.2.3 Public-private co-publications permillion population 2/3 1/3 2/9 9/24 8.33%
2.3.1 EPO patents applications per billionregional GDP (in PPS)
2/3 1/3 2/9 9/24 8.33%
Weight o CIS
indicators in
Firm activities
Weight o
indicator in
CIS indicators
2.1.2 Non-R&D innovation expenditures as% o turnover
1/3 1/3 1/9 9/24 4.17%
2.2.1 SMEs innovating in-house as % oSMEs
1/3 1/3 1/9 9/24 4.17%
2.2.2 Innovative SMEs collaborating withothers as % o SMEs
1/3 1/3 1/9 9/24 4.17%
Weight onon-CIS
indicators in
Outputs
Weight oindicator
in non-CIS
indicators
Weight in
Outputs
Weight o
Outputs in IUS
Weight o
indicator in RIS
3.2.1 Employment in knowledge-intensiveservices + Employment in medium-high/high-tech manuacturing as %o total workorce
4/7 100% 4/7 7/24 16.67%
Weight o
CIS indicators
in Outputs
Weight o
indicator in
CIS indicators
3.1.1 SMEs introducing product or processinnovations as % o SMEs
3/7 33.33% 1/7 7/24 4.17%
3.1.2 SMEs introducing marketing ororganisational innovations as % oSMEs
3/7 33.33% 1/7 7/24 4.17%
3.2.4 Sales o new to market and new torm innovations as % o turnover
3/7 33.33% 1/7 7/24 4.17%
The combined weight o the CIS indicators would be 25%,identical to the weight o these indicators in the IUS. Butthe table also shows that some indicators have a weight 4times that o the CIS indicators and this overemphasized therelative importance o these indicators. We have thereoredecided to combine the weights shown in Table 9 with a
scheme o equal weights where each o the 12 indicatorswould receive a weight o 8.33%. The combination o
weights results in the percentage share o each o theindicators in the RIS composite index as shown in Table 11.
All data have been normalized using the sameprocedure as in the IUS, where the normalized value isequal to the dierence between the real value and the
lowest value across all regions divided by the dierencebetween the highest and lowest value across all regions.
7/28/2019 Innovacion Regional 2012 Regions Europa
27/76
27Regional InnovationScoreboard 2012
These values are rst transormed using a power root
transormation i the data are not normally distributed.
Most o the indicators are ractional indicators with valuesbetween 0% and 100%. Some indicators are unboundindicators, where values are not limited to an upper threshold.These indicators can have skewed data distributions (wheremost regions show low perormance levels and a ewregions show exceptionally high perormance levels). Forall indicators data will be transormed using a square root
The data have then been normalized using the min-maxprocedure where the transormed score is rst subtracted withthe minimum score over all regions in 2006, 2008 and 2010
and then divided by the dierence between the maximum andminimum scores over all regions in 2006, 2008 and 2010:
transormation with power Ni the degree o skewness o
the raw data exceeds 0.5 such that the skewness o thetransormed data is below 0.5 (none o the imputed dataare included in this process):
Table 11 summarizes the degree o skewness beoreand afer the transormation and the power N used inthe transormation.
The maximum normalised score is thus equal to 1 and the
minimum normalised score is equal to 0. These normalisedscores are then used to calculate the composite indicators.
Table 11: Percentage contribution indicators to RII, degree of skewness and transformation for each of the RIS indicators
RIS 2009
weights
Equal
weights
RIS 2011
weights
Degreeo skew-
ness beoretransormation
Power used in
transormation
Degree oskewness
aer trans-ormation
ENABLERS
1.1.2 Percentage population aged 25-64having completed tertiary education
16.67% 8.33% 12.5% 0.150 1 0.150
1.3.1 R&D expenditure in the public sectoras % o regional GDP
16.67% 8.33% 12.5% 0.853 2/3 0.215
FIRM ACTIVITIES
2.1.1 R&D expenditure in the businesssector as % o regional GDP
8.33% 8.33% 8.33% 1.715 1/3 0.259
2.1.2 Non-R&D innovation expenditures as% o turnover
4.17% 8.33% 6.25% 1.158 1/2 0.193
2.2.1 SMEs innovating in-house as % oSMEs
4.17% 8.33% 6.25% -0.015 1 -0.015
2.2.2 Innovative SMEs collaborating withothers as % o SMEs
4.17% 8.33% 6.25% 0.275 1 0.275
2.2.3 Public-private co-publications permillion population
8.33% 8.33% 8.33% 3.343 1/3 0.358
2.3.1 PCT patents applications per billionregional GDP (in PPS)
8.33% 8.33% 8.33% 2.197 1/3 0.229
OUTPUTS
3.1.1 SMEs introducing product or processinnovations as % o SMEs
4.17% 8.33% 6.25% 0.113 1 0.113
3.1.2 SMEs introducing marketing or
organisational innovations as % oSMEs 4.17% 8.33%6.25% 0.667 2/3 0.368
3.2.1 Employment in knowledge-intensiveservices + Employment in medium-high/high-tech manuacturing as %o total workorce
4.17% 8.33% 12.5% 0.003 1 0.003
3.2.4 Sales o new to market and new torm innovations as % o turnover
16.67% 8.33% 6.25% 0.225 1 0.225
7/28/2019 Innovacion Regional 2012 Regions Europa
28/76
Regional InnovationScoreboard 201228
5. Regional research and innovationpotential through EU unding17,18
5.1 Introduction
This special chapter o the Regional Innovation Scoreboard(RIS 2012) aims to understand the relationship o the use o
two main EU unding instruments and innovation perormance:
the Framework Programmes or Research and Technological
Development (FP6 and FP7), and the Structural Funds (SFs).
Firstly, the chapter proposes a typological classication o
EU regions according to their use o EU unds, providing
a landscape o the EU regions use o Structural Funds
or business innovation and the regional participation
in FP unded research, technological development and
demonstration projects. The chapter ocuses on the case o
regional SF support or business innovation, and investigates
whether the regions capacity to invest in business innovationimproved over the past two programming periods, and i
this improvement is linked with an increased participation in
the Framework Programme competitive unding.
Secondly, it addresses the link between the use o EU
unds and regional innovation perormance by making
use o the results o the RIS 2012. Does the regions
absorption capacity and leverage power o EU unding
match their level o innovativeness? Or are the most
innovative regions mobilising more local resources in
support o innovation and particularly rom the private
sector? More particularly, the chapter aims to contribute to
the debate o the so called regional innovation paradox-
or the contradiction between the comparatively greater
need to spend on innovation in lagging regions and their
relatively lower capacity to absorb public unds earmarked
or the promotion o innovation and to invest in innovation
related activities due to their low innovation perormance.
The study will contribute to the debate on the role o EU
unding instruments in a multilevel governance system
and help to understand to what extent these unds
complement and reinorce national and regional innovation
policies. It also contributes in understanding the challengeso improving coordination and seeking synergies and
impacts o various EU interventions at regional level.
Section 5.2 gives a brie overview o the broad use o
SF and FP unds across all regions in the periods 2000-
2006 and 2007-2013, showing a general landscape o
the absorption o EU unds. Sections 5.3 and 5.4 describe
the indicators, data sources and methodology used or
the analysis. Section 5.5 presents the dierent typological
groups o regions according to their use o EU unds and
innovation perormance. Section 5.6 concludes.
5.2 The use o EU unding at regional levelThe Structural Funds are an instrument o the EUs cohesionpolicy through which the EU invests in job creation,
competitiveness, economic growth, improved quality o lie
and sustainable development, in line with the Europe 2020
strategy19. They are an important source o investment in
research and innovation in regions, with 19.5 billion o
expenditure in this eld in 2000-2006 and around 69 billion
allocated to business innovation in 2007-201320. Relative
to the total value o Structural Funds available or each
period, the unds or business innovation represented 11%
o the total SF expenditures in 2000-2006, and 20% o all
allocations o available unds in the period 2007-2013.
Figure 12 shows a comparison o the distribution o
average structural unds expenditures/allocations by type
o regions per year/per capita in both periods analysed. The
highest annual Structural Funds investments per capita
were targeted towards supporting services or business
innovation across all three types o regions21. Objective 1
regions spent the highest amounts o unds on support
or services in the rst period (7.46/year/capita), ollowed
by Objective 3 regions (3.5/year/capita). Furthermore,
17
This chapter was prepared by Lorena Rivera Lon and Laura Roman rom Technopolis Group.18 The analysis in this chapter is at NUTS 2 level as this is the level o detail or which data on Structural Funds and Framework Programmes or Research and
Technological Development (FP6 and FP7) are available.19 See DG REGIO, What is regional policy?http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/what/index_en.cfm20 See section 3 or the deinition o the indicators or structural unds or business innovation used in this chapter.21 The unds were targeted towards three types o regions in 2000-2006, according to the previous programmings period development objectives: Objective
1 unds targeted regions in need o structural adjustment, with a GDP per capita o less than 75% o the EU average; Objective 2 regions were the ones
undergoing economic and social conversion (industrial, rural, urban and isheries-dependent zones); Objective 3 unds supported improved training and
employment policies in regions.
Figure 12: Average annual Structural Funds expenditure/allocations per capita by type of region, 2000-2006 and 2007-2013
Source:
Data warehouse Directorate
General Regional Policy
European Commission,
Regional estimates by Unit
C3 DG REGIO; data analysis
by Technopolis Group.
7/28/2019 Innovacion Regional 2012 Regions Europa
29/76
29Regional InnovationScoreboard 2012
Figure 13: Overview o FP6 (2002-2006) and FP7 (2007-2013) average participation by type o regions, ( per capita)
the investments in ramework conditions or business
innovation (including R&D investments) were the second
highest expenditure in all regions, with 4.5/year/capitaspent in Objective 1 regions.For the current programming period, Figure 12 shows
that the Structural Funds annual allocations per capita
supporting ramework conditions or business innovation
(19/year/capita) are on average almost equal to the
annual average support or services or business innovation
(19.8/year/capita) in Convergence regions22. The regions
belonging to the Competitiveness and Employment
objective allocated on average more unds to services or
business innovation (6/year/capita) than to enhancing
ramework conditions (3.8/year/capita). It is also visible
that the bulk o the unds were allocated to Convergence
Since the individual regions participation in the Framework
Programme is conditioned by the location o research
inrastructure within their boundaries, an overview o the
average FP unds attracted by the regions needs to beconsidered with care. As shown in Figure 13, Objective 3
regions were the ones attracting the highest amount o FP6
unds, worth on average around 92.3 million per region,
or 73 per capita. Objective 2 regions were not very ar
behind, as their average participation in FP6 amounted to
79.4 million. However, the latter only attracted an average
o 35 in per capita terms. Comparatively, objective 1
regions attracted 21.4 million o FP6 unds, or 14.4
per capita on average. The low absorbers in the current
FP7 are Convergence regions, which attracted 13.4 per
capita on average (or an average o 22.7 million each)
(up to February 2012), while the Competitiveness regionsreached an amount our times higher o 55.4 per capita
regions, with 71.8% o the absolute volume o Structural
Funds reported as allocated or business innovation, while
the Competitiveness (RCE) regions have a smaller amounto unds allocated (28.1% o the total Structural Funds or
business innovation).
Investments in ICT and digital inrastructure, and
environmental technologies or eco-innovation are low
across most regions in both periods23. Objective 1 regions
spent 1.5/year/capita on ICT stimulating measures in
2000-2006, while the Convergence regions allocated on
average 3.8/year/capita or ICT in the current period.
Structural Fund investments o Objective 2 and Objective
3 regions in 2000-2006 as well as the reported allocations
o the Competitiveness regions in 2007-2013 were close
to zero in the eld o ICT and environmental technologies.
(or a total o 116.3 million) on average per region.
The leverage o the unds (dierence between the total cost
o the projects and the total subsidies received) is generally
lower in FP7 or Competitiveness and Convergence regionsthan in FP6 or the three types o regions respectively. It
is interesting to note that or 55.4 per capita absorbed
in Competitiveness regions in FP7 so ar, the contribution
o the region to the project cost amounted on average to
17.7 per capita. In contrast, the leverage or the average
FP6 participation in Objective 2 and 3 regions amounted
to around hal o the average total subsidies received in
nominal terms and per capita terms. For a total o 92.2
million absorbed rom FP6 unds in Objective 3 regions on
average, the leverage amounted to 52.4 million per region,
compared to 79.3 absorbed on average in Objective 2
regions, and only 6.6 per capita leveraged on average inObjective 1 regions.
Source: External Common Research Data Warehouse E-CORDA o the Directorate General Research and Innovation o the EuropeanCommission (cut-o date 16 February 2012). Data analysis by Technopolis Group.
Note: The indicator leverage shows the dierence between the total cost o research in all projects and the total amount o subsidies granted.
22 In the 2007-2013 period, the Structural Funds target primarily regions belonging to the Convergence Objective (with a GDP below 75% o the EU average)
and to the Regional Competitiveness and Employment Objective (with a GDP higher than 75% o the EU average).23 However, it is important to note that the ields o investment included in both indicators are dierent or the two periods, see Table 2 or more details. The
comparison between these indicators in the two periods needs to be treated with care.
7/28/2019 Innovacion Regional 2012 Regions Europa
30/76
Regional InnovationScoreboard 201230
5.3 Indicators and data availability
5.3.1 Data sources
Two are the main data sources used in this analysis:
Structural Funds data was obtained rom the datawarehouse o the Directorate General or RegionalPolicy o the European Commission (regionalestimates by Unit C3 DG REGIO)
Framework Programme data was obtained romthe External Common Research Data WarehouseE-CORDA o the Directorate General Research andInnovation o the European Commission (cut-odate 16 February 2012)
In order to link the use o EU unding in regions withregional innovation perormance, the chapter makesuse o the results o the assessment o regionalinnovation perormance calculated in the main sectiono this report as part o the RIS 2012.
5.3.2 Indicators
This chapter explores the use o Structural Fundsin business innovation according to a compositethematic categorisation o the elds o interventionor the periods o 2000-2006 and 2007-2013. Thecomparison o the indicators between the two periodsneeds to be considered with care, as the gures or
2000-06 are certied expenditures, while the 2007-2013 indicators reect the reported allocations ounds (i.e. not actual expenditures). Moreover, theamounts registered or each eld o investment aresel-reported by the regions, which might create someunobserved bias and thus diminish the validity o thedata analysis. In order to compare the use o structuralunds or business innovation or both periods and atthe regional level, the values o the unds are reportedat a per capita level or each region and annualised. Forthis, the data or the Member States that joined the EUin 2004 accounts or the act that they benetted rom
Structural Funds or only three years in 2000-2006.The relevant thematic categories o investment prioritiesestablished by DG REGIO or the Structural Funds weresummed into our main indicators that reect theamount o regional support or our core areas:
Framework conditions or business innova-
tion (including R&D): portrays the use o undsin support o improving the general conditions thatare in place in regions or research and innovationactivities, which have an impact on both the publicand private sectors perormance;
ICT and digital inrastructure: unds targeted
specically at improving the inrastructure orInormation and Communication Technology;
Environmental technologies or eco-innovation:
investments aimed to strengthen the take-upo sustainable and environmentally riendlytechnologies. It is included as a separate indicator inthe analysis based on the importance o the directlink that such support is considered to have as adriver or business innovation, particularly in the lastyears o increased support to the green economy asan EU policy priority;
Services or business innovation is an indicatorcomposed o the elds o investments that are
directly targeting the enhancement o innovationoutputs in enterprises (mainly advisory services,technology transer and training measures aimed atenterprises).
The Framework Programme unds were analysed basedon quantiying our major indicators or the participationo the regions in competitive research and technologydevelopment. In particular, the indicators shed light onthe strength o the private sectors participation in theprogramme by considering the ollowing dimensions:
The total amount o subsidies received bythe regional actors per year (per capita) indicates the
absorptive capacity o the region in attracting FP unds;
The leverage (per capita), or the dierencebetween the total cost o the projects and thetotal subsidies received in the region or the FPprojects undertaken, which shows the power othe regional research actors to raise additionalunds rom urther public or private sources tosupport competitive research;
The number o participations rom the
private sector (per thousand inhabitants) is linkedto the amount o private enterprises engaged in FPprojects in the region. It shows the strength o the
business sector as a research actor; Percentage o SME participation in private
sector shows the share o Small and MediumEnterprises in the total number o FP participationsrom the private sector. This indicator hints to thevibrancy o the business innovation environment inthe region.
Data is available or building all indicators or a total o271 NUTS2 regions o the 27 Member States. Table 12shows the categories o expenditures and allocationsthat are included in each indicator, based on DGREGIOs denitions or both periods. The titles o the
elds o investments were changed by DG REGIO romone period to the other.
7/28/2019 Innovacion Regional 2012 Regions Europa
31/76
31Regional InnovationScoreboard 2012
Table 12: Use o EU unds in regions, 2000-2006 and 2007-2013
Indicator Structural Funds 2000-2006 Structural Funds 2007-2013
Framework conditions
or business innovation
180. Research, technological development and innovation(RTDI)
181. Research projects based in universities and researchinstitutes
183. RTDI Inrastructure184. Training or researchers
01: R&TD activities in research centres02: R&TD inrastructure and centres o competence in a
specic technology04: Assistance to R&TD, particularly in SMEs (including
access to R&TD services in research centres)07: Investment in rms directly linked to research and innovation
ICT and digital
inrastructure
322. Inormation and Communication Technology (includingsecurity and sae transmission measures)
11: Inormation and communication technologies
15: Other measures or improving access to and
efcient use o ICT by SMEs
Environmental technologies
or eco-innovation
162. Environment-riendly technologies, clean and econom-ical energy technologies
06: Assistance to SMEs or the promotion o environmen-tally-riendly products and production processes
Services or
business
innovation
182. Innovation and technology transers, establishment onetworks and partnerships between businesses and/orresearch institutes
153. Business advisory services (including internation-alisation, exporting and environmental management,purchase o technology)
163. Business advisory services (inormation, business plan-ning, consultancy services, marketing, management,design, internationalisation, exporting, environmentalmanagement, purchase o technology)
164. Shared business services (business estates, incubatorunits, stimulation, promotional services, networking,conerences, trade airs)
324. Services and applications or SMEs (electronic commerceand transactions, education and training, networking)
03: Technology transer and improvement o cooperationnetworks
09: Other measures to stimulate research and innovationand entrepreneurship in SMEs
05: Advanced support services or rms and groups o rms62: Development o lie-long learning systems and strate-
gies in rms; training and services or employees ...63: Design and dissemination o innovative and more
productive ways o organising work14: Services and applications or SMEs (e-commerce, educa-
tion and training, networking, etc.)
FP6 AND FP7INDICATORS
Total amount o subsidies received (per capita)
Leverage (per capita)
Number o participations rom the private sector (per thousand inhabitants)
Percentage o SME participation in private sector
Source: Technopolis Group
5.4 MethodologyA cluster analysis was perormed to groupinormation on the use o EU unds in regions basedon their similarity on the dierent sub-indicators
presented in section 3. In order to perorm theanalysis and to avoid results being inluenced byscores o regions over-perorming, the datasethas been normalised or outliers scores with thenext best values24. Two periods are analysedand compared: 2000-2006, including the irstprogramming period (PP) o Structural Funds (SFs),and FP6 (2002-2006); and 2007-2013, accountingor the second PP o SFs and FP7.The method ok-means clustering has been used.This procedure attempts to identiy relativelyhomogenous groups o cases based on the
selected characteristics. It is useul when the aim
is to divide the sample in k clusters o greatestpossible distinction. Dierent k parameters weretested. Since the ultimate aim o the analysis was
to relate the clustering exercise o EU unds toinnovation perormance as per the results o theRIS 2012, the tested values or the k parameterstested ranged rom 2 to 5. The k-means algorithmsupplies k clusters, as distinct as possible, byanalysing the variance o each cluster. The aimo the algorithm is to minimise the variance oelements within the clusters, while maximisingthe variance o the elements outside the clusters.Cases were classiied using the method updatingcluster centres iteratively, with optimal solutionsor a k parameter value o 4; and 8 and 7 iterations
or both analysed periods respectively.
24 Values representing the mean plus two standards deviations were normalised with the next best value considering that
68% o the values drawn rom a normal distribution are within one standard deviation > 0 away rom the mean ; about95% are within two standard deviations and about 99,7% lie within three standard deviations.
7/28/2019 Innovacion Regional 2012 Regions Europa
32/76
Regional InnovationScoreboard 201232
Cluster analysis distinguishes our typologies oregions absorbing and leveraging EU unds over thetwo observation periods:
FP leading absorbers, or regions with low useo SFs or business innovation; and medium-to-high participation in FPs, leverage power, and FPparticipation rom the private sector;
SFs leading users, or regions with medium-to-high use o SFs or business innovation (includingR&D) and services (including ICTs and digitalinrastructure and environmental technologies); andlow participation in FPs and leverage power;
Full users/absorbers but at low levels,or regions with medium-to-high use o SFs or
The dierences in the characteristics o the use o EUunds are also observed or each o the typologiesacross both periods (c. Table 13). On average, FPleading absorbers received around 6 times moreo FP6 subsidies per capita (96) than the lowusers/absorbers (16) and had about 8 times moreleverage power in the period 2000-2006. Thegaps between both regions decreased in FP7, butincreased between FP leading absorbers and ullusers/absorbers. In contrast, SFs leading users spent7 times more o SFs to business innovation than
the low user regions in the period 2000-2006, and
business innovation and services, low use ounds or ICTs and digital inrastructure andenvironmental technologies; and low participationin FP and leverage power, but medium-highimportance o SMEs' participation in the privatesector;
Low users/absorbers, or regions with low use oSFs or business innovation; and low participation inFP and leverage power.
For these our groups we nd, over the two observationperiods (542 observations or 271 regions), a majorityo low users/absorbers (63%), ollowed by ull users/
absorbers (17%), FP leading absorbers (15%) and SFleading users (6%) (c. Figure 14).
the gap remained constant in their allocations orthe period 2007-2013. Moreover, the gap betweenSF leading users and ull/users absorbers doubledbetween the two periods. However, all regionsincreased considerably their per capita allocationsto business innovation in the period 2007-2013,compared to expenditures or 2000-2006.
Cluster membership is shown or each o the 271regions in the Annex to this chapter. When lookingat the countries that gather most o the regions
in each typology (c. Table 14), results show that
Figure 14: Maps o unding typology o regions
Maps created with Region Map Generator.
2000-2006 2007-2013
5.5 Regional absorption and leverage o EU unding
7/28/2019 Innovacion Regional 2012 Regions Europa
33/76
33Regional InnovationScoreboard 2012
most o the FP leading absorber regions are rom
Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK across bothperiods. German and UK regions also hold a largeshare o the low absorbers/users. The dichotomyo having large absorption o competitive undingthrough FPs in some regions, and low use o SFsor business innovation in others could relectthe dierences in regional capacities inside bothcountries in line with the results showed in the RIS2011, and the use o alternative unds in supporto business innovation (i.e. national sources nonSFs, and private sources).
Interesting changes occur between both periods inthe membership structure o SF leading users andull users/absorbers. Probably the most interestingcase is that o Greek regions, which were a largemajority in the typology o SF leading users in 2000-2006, to then being second most representatives oull users/absorbers in 2007-2013. This could showthree possible phenomena: a ull absorption o SFsin support o business innovation in the rst periodleading to other priorities in the allocation o undsor the second period; a lack o capacity to absorbSFs to business innovation in the second period(afer large investments in the rst period) leading
to changes in priorities; or a mix o both phenomenaacross regions.
In more detail, by comparing regional typologymembership with country group membership, weobserve the ollowing interesting acts:
Praha (CZ01) is a FP leading absorber region withinthe Czech Republic in both studied periods, whileall other Czech regions changed rom being lowabsorbers/users to SF leading users.
All Danish regions are low absorbers/users oEU unds in both periods, with the exception oHovedstaden (DK01), which became a FP leadingabsorber in FP7.
The large majority o German regions are lowabsorber/users o EU unding (64% in P1 and 69%in P2), ollowed by FP leading absorber regions(18% and 15% in both periods respectively), andull users/absorbers. The large majority o thelow users/absorbers and FP leading absorbers areObjective 2/RCE regions, whereas all ull users/
absorbers are Objective 1/Convergence regions.
None o the German regions are SF leading users.
Spain had a large majority o ull users/absorberregions in the period 2000-2006 (53%), and amajority o low users/absorber regions in theperiod 2007-2013.
In France, the large majority o regions are lowabsorbers/users (92% and 81% in each periodrespectively). Ile de France (FR10) is an FP leadingabsorber in both periods25, and the regions oCorse (FR83), Guadeloupe (FR91), Martinique(FR92) and Guyane (FR93), changed their typology
membership rom low users/absorbers to ullusers/absorbers between both periods.
Most o the Italian regions are low users/absorbers(81% and 62% in both periods). The region oSicilia (ITG1) was a SF leading user in 2000-2006,and Puglia (ITF4) was in 2007-2013. The regionso Liguria (ITC3), Provincia Autonoma Trento (ITD2),and Lazio (ITE4) are FP leading absorbers in bothperiods.
All Hungarian regions were low users/absorbersin the period 2000-2006, and most o them
became ull users/absorbers in 2007-2013, withthe exception o Hungarys capi