IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/lucirc/2015_016.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Innovation Union Scoreboard is Flawed: The case of Sweden – not being the innovation leader of the EU

Author

Listed:
  • Edquist , Charles

    () (CIRCLE, Lund University)

  • Zabala-Iturriagagoitia , Jon Mikel

    () (Deusto Business School, Deusto University)

Abstract

According to the Innovation Union Scoreboard, published by the European Commission every year, Sweden has been, and still is, an innovation leader within the EU and one of the most innovative countries in Europe. In the Innovation Union Scoreboard 2014 (European Union, 2014: 5), Sweden has the top position (ranked number 1) of all EU28 Member States in what is called “EU Member States’ Innovation Performance”. In the ranking there are 10 countries between Sweden and the EU average. This analysis is based on the ranking provided by one single composite indicator (SII or Summary Innovation Index), based on 25 separate indicators. In this paper we argue that the SII provided by the Innovation Union Scoreboard is highly misleading. The data (the 25 separate indicators) that constitute this composite innovation indicator need to be analyzed much more in depth in order to reach a correct measure of the performance of an innovation system. We argue that input and output indicators need to be considered separately and measured individually and as two groups of indicators. Thereafter we compare the input and output indicators with one another (as is normally done in productivity and efficiency measurements). The outcome of this is a relevant and better measure of innovation performance. In this paper, the performance of the Swedish national innovation system is analyzed by using exactly the same data as is used by the Innovation Union Scoreboard 2014. We analyze the relative position of Sweden regarding both input and output indicators, concluding that Sweden’s position as an innovation leader within the EU must be reconsidered. A theoretical background and reasons for selecting the indicators used is given and a new position regarding Sweden’s innovation performance compared to the other countries is calculated. Our findings show, that Sweden remains in a high position for the innovation input indicators, ranked number 1. However, with regard to innovation output, Sweden is ranked number 10. In other words, about a third of all European Union 28 Member States have a higher innovation output than Sweden. To estimate the efficiency or productivity of the Swedish innovation system, inputs and outputs must be related to each other. When doing so, we reach the conclusion that Sweden is ranked number 24 of EU28 Member States. This finding is then discussed and we also discuss which countries would be relevant for Sweden to compare (benchmark) its innovation system with. The conclusion is that Sweden, based on our calculations, can certainly not be seen as an innovation leader in Europe. This means that the Innovation Union Scoreboard is flawed and may therefore mislead researchers, policy-makers, politicians as well as the general public – since it is widely reported in the media.

Suggested Citation

  • Edquist , Charles & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia , Jon Mikel, 2015. "The Innovation Union Scoreboard is Flawed: The case of Sweden – not being the innovation leader of the EU," Papers in Innovation Studies 2015/16, Lund University, CIRCLE - Center for Innovation, Research and Competences in the Learning Economy.
  • Handle: RePEc:hhs:lucirc:2015_016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://wp.circle.lu.se/upload/CIRCLE/workingpapers/201516_Edquist_ZabalaIturriagagoitia.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Edurne Magro & Mikel Navarro & Jon Mikel Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, 2014. "Coordination-Mix: The Hidden Face of STI Policy," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 31(5), pages 367-389, September.
    2. Olof Ejermo & Astrid Kander, 2011. "Swedish business research productivity," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(4), pages 1081-1118, August.
    3. Grupp, Hariolf & Mogee, Mary Ellen, 2004. "Indicators for national science and technology policy: how robust are composite indicators?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1373-1384, November.
    4. Audretsch, David B., 2009. "Emergence of the entrepreneurial society," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 52(5), pages 505-511, September.
    5. David Audretsch, 2009. "The entrepreneurial society," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 245-254, June.
    6. Rinaldo Evangelista & Tore Sandven & Giorgio Sirilli & Keith Smith, 1998. "Measuring Innovation in European Industry," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(3), pages 311-333.
    7. Dominique Foray & Hugo Hollanders, 2015. "An assessment of the Innovation Union Scoreboard as a tool to analyse national innovation capacities: The case of Switzerland," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 24(2), pages 213-228.
    8. Ejermo, Olof & Kander, Astrid & Svensson Henning, Martin, 2011. "The R&D-growth paradox arises in fast-growing sectors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(5), pages 664-672, June.
    9. Jacobsson, Staffan & Rickne, Annika, 2004. "How large is the Swedish 'academic' sector really?: A critical analysis of the use of science and technology indicators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1355-1372, November.
    10. Jacques Mairesse & Pierre Mohnen, 2002. "Accounting for Innovation and Measuring Innovativeness: An Illustrative Framework and an Application," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(2), pages 226-230, May.
    11. Heidenreich, Martin, 2009. "Innovation patterns and location of European low- and medium-technology industries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 483-494, April.
    12. repec:spr:scient:v:70:y:2007:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-007-0106-8 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Charles Edquist, 2011. "Design of innovation policy through diagnostic analysis: identification of systemic problems (or failures)," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(6), pages 1725-1753, December.
    14. Edquist , Charles, 2014. "Striving Towards a Holistic Innovation Policy in European Countries - But Linearity Still Prevails!," Papers in Innovation Studies 2014/22, Lund University, CIRCLE - Center for Innovation, Research and Competences in the Learning Economy.
    15. Mikel Navarro & Juan Jose Gibaja & Beñat Bilbao-Osorio & Ricardo Aguado, 2009. "Patterns of innovation in EU-25 regions: a typology and policy recommendations," Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 27(5), pages 815-840, October.
    16. Anders Granberg & Staffan Jacobsson, 2006. "Myths or reality - a scrutiny of dominant beliefs in the Swedish science policy debate," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(5), pages 321-340, June.
    17. Jon Zabala-Iturriagagoitia & Peter Voigt & Antonio Gutierrez-Gracia & Fernando Jimenez-Saez, 2007. "Regional Innovation Systems: How to Assess Performance," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(5), pages 661-672.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. repec:bal:journl:2256-0742:2017:3:5:51 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Attila Havas, 2015. "Various approaches to measuring business innovation: their relevance for capturing social innovation," IEHAS Discussion Papers 1554, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies, Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
    3. repec:wfo:wstudy:59303 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Janger, Jürgen & Schubert, Torben & Andries, Petra & Rammer, Christian & Hoskens, Machteld, 2017. "The EU 2020 innovation indicator: A step forward in measuring innovation outputs and outcomes?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 30-42.
    5. Attila Havas, 2016. "Social and Business Innovations: Are Common Measurement Approaches Possible?," Foresight and STI Governance (Foresight-Russia till No. 3/2015), National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 10(2), pages 58-80.
    6. repec:spr:jknowl:v:8:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s13132-016-0406-4 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Srholec Martin & Szkuta Katarzyna, 2016. "RIO Country Report 2015: Czech Republic," JRC Working Papers JRC101175, Joint Research Centre (Seville site).
    8. repec:wfo:wstudy:61111 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. repec:wfo:wstudy:58202 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Innovation system; innovation policy; innovation performance; Sweden; indicators; input; output;

    JEL classification:

    • O30 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - General
    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy
    • O49 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity - - - Other
    • O52 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economywide Country Studies - - - Europe

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hhs:lucirc:2015_016. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Torben Schubert). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/circlse.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.