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 - Centre for Innovation Research.
    • 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. Edquist, Charles, 2014. "Efficiency of Research and Innovation Systems for Economic Growth and Employment," Papers in Innovation Studies 2014/8, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    2. 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.
    3. Olof Ejermo & Astrid Kander, 2011. "Swedish business research productivity," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 20(4), pages 1081-1118, August.
    4. 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.
    5. Charles Edquist & Leif Hommen & Maureen McKelvey, 2001. "Innovation and Employment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2138.
    6. Audretsch, David B., 2009. "Emergence of the entrepreneurial society," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 52(5), pages 505-511, September.
    7. David Audretsch, 2009. "The entrepreneurial society," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 245-254, June.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Heidenreich, Martin, 2009. "Innovation patterns and location of European low- and medium-technology industries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 483-494, April.
    14. Jon Mikel Zabala-Iturriagagoitia & Fernando Jiménez-Sáez & Elena Castro-Martínez & Antonio Gutiérrez-Gracia, 2007. "What indicators do (or do not) tell us about Regional Innovation Systems," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(1), pages 85-106, January.
    15. Charles Edquist, 2011. "Design of innovation policy through diagnostic analysis: identification of systemic problems (or failures)," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 20(6), pages 1725-1753, December.
    16. Edquist, Charles, 2011. "Innovation Policy Design: Identification of Systemic Problems," Papers in Innovation Studies 2011/6, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    17. 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 - Centre for Innovation Research.
    18. Mikel Navarro & Juan José Gibaja & Beñat Bilbao-Osorio & Ricardo Aguado, 2009. "Patterns of Innovation in EU-25 Regions: A Typology and Policy Recommendations," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 27(5), pages 815-840, October.
    19. David B. Audretsch, 2009. "The Entrepreneurial Society," International Studies in Entrepreneurship, in: David B. Audretsch & Giovanni Battista Dagnino & Rosario Faraci & Robert E. Hoskisson (ed.), New Frontiers in Entrepreneurship, chapter 0, pages 95-105, Springer.
    20. 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.
    21. 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. Klaus S. Friesenbichler & Agnes Kügler, 2017. "Statistical Benchmarking as a Development Tool. An Introduction for Practitioners," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 59303, February.
    2. Edquist , Charles & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia , Jon Mikel, 2015. "The Innovation Union Scoreboard is flawed: The Case of Sweden – not the innovation leader of the EU – updated version," Papers in Innovation Studies 2015/27, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    3. Astrid Kander & Josef Taalbi & Juha Oksanen & Karolin Sjöö & Nina Rilla, 2019. "Innovation trends and industrial renewal in Finland and Sweden 1970–2013," Scandinavian Economic History Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 67(1), pages 47-70, January.
    4. Srholec Martin & Szkuta Katarzyna, 2016. "RIO Country Report 2015: Czech Republic," JRC Research Reports JRC101175, Joint Research Centre.
    5. G. Martinidis & N. Komninos & E. Carayannis, 2022. "Taking into Account the Human Factor in Regional Innovation Systems and Policies," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 13(2), pages 849-879, June.
    6. 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.
    7. Jürgen Janger & Agnes Kügler, 2018. "Innovationseffizienz. Österreich im internationalen Vergleich," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 61111, February.
    8. Sehoon Kim, 2022. "A Global Entrepreneurship Efficiency Benchmarking and Comparison Study based on National Systems of Entrepreneurship and Early-Stage Business: A Data Envelopment Analysis Approach," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(3), pages 21582440221, September.
    9. Agnes Kügler & Jürgen Janger, 2015. "Innovationseffizienz in den EU-Ländern. Eine Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA)," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 58202, February.
    10. Dionisio, Eduardo Avancci & Inácio Júnior, Edmundo & Fischer, Bruno Brandão, 2021. "Country-level efficiency and the index of dynamic entrepreneurship: Contributions from an efficiency approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    11. Vladyslav Pavlov, 2017. "Innovative Development Of Ukraine'S Economy: Conceptual Principles And Provisions Of Effective Management," Baltic Journal of Economic Studies, Publishing house "Baltija Publishing", vol. 3(5).
    12. Tom Broekel & Nicky Rogge & Thomas Brenner, 2018. "The innovation efficiency of German regions – a shared-input DEA approach," Review of Regional Research: Jahrbuch für Regionalwissenschaft, Springer;Gesellschaft für Regionalforschung (GfR), vol. 38(1), pages 77-109, February.
    13. Attila Havas, 2015. "Various approaches to measuring business innovation: their relevance for capturing social innovation," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 1554, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    14. 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.
    15. Szopik-Depczyńska, Katarzyna & Kędzierska-Szczepaniak, Angelika & Szczepaniak, Krzysztof & Cheba, Katarzyna & Gajda, Waldemar & Ioppolo, Giuseppe, 2018. "Innovation in sustainable development: an investigation of the EU context using 2030 agenda indicators," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 251-262.
    16. George Martinidis, 2017. "The Importance of Man Within the System: Defining and Measuring the Human Factor in Innovation, a Review," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 8(2), pages 638-652, June.
    17. Ana Garcia-Bernabeu & José Manuel Cabello & Francisco Ruiz, 2020. "A Multi-Criteria Reference Point Based Approach for Assessing Regional Innovation Performance in Spain," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-21, May.
    18. Bostjan Udovic & Maja Bucar & Hristo Hristov, 2016. "RIO Country Report 2015: Slovenia," JRC Research Reports JRC101219, Joint Research Centre.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Edquist , Charles & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia , Jon Mikel, 2015. "The Innovation Union Scoreboard is flawed: The Case of Sweden – not the innovation leader of the EU – updated version," Papers in Innovation Studies 2015/27, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    2. Barbero, Javier & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, Jon Mikel & Zofío, José L., 2021. "Is more always better? On the relevance of decreasing returns to scale on innovation," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    3. Jacobsson, Staffan & Lindholm-Dahlstrand, Åsa & Elg, Lennart, 2013. "Is the commercialization of European academic R&D weak?—A critical assessment of a dominant belief and associated policy responses," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 874-885.
    4. Porto-Gomez, Igone & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, Jon Mikel & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2019. "Innovation systems in México: A matter of missing synergies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    5. Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, Jon Mikel & Aparicio, Juan & Ortiz, Lidia & Carayannis, Elias G. & Grigoroudis, Evangelos, 2021. "The productivity of national innovation systems in Europe: Catching up or falling behind?," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    6. Edquist , Charles, 2015. "Innovation-related Public Procurement as a Demand-oriented Innovation Policy Instrument," Papers in Innovation Studies 2015/28, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    7. Shahid Qureshi & Sarfraz Mian, 2021. "Transfer of entrepreneurship education best practices from business schools to engineering and technology institutions: evidence from Pakistan," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 366-392, April.
    8. Kostakis, Ioannis & Lolos, Sarantis & Doulgeraki, Charikleia, 2020. "Cultural Heritage led Growth: Regional evidence from Greece (1998-2016)," MPRA Paper 98443, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Balázs Páger, 2014. "The entrepreneurial performance of the Central and Eastern European regions," ERSA conference papers ersa14p1631, European Regional Science Association.
    10. Chandra S. R. Nuthalapati & Chaitanya Nuthalapati, 2021. "Has Open Innovation Taken Root in India? Evidence from Startups Working in Food Value Chains," Circular Economy and Sustainability,, Springer.
    11. Khatab Alqararah, 2023. "Assessing the robustness of composite indicators: the case of the Global Innovation Index," Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 1-22, December.
    12. Erik Lundmark & Anna Krzeminska & Dean A. Shepherd, 2019. "Images of Entrepreneurship: Exploring Root Metaphors and Expanding Upon Them," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 43(1), pages 138-170, January.
    13. Askfors, Ylva & Fornstedt, Helena, 2018. "The clash of managerial and professional logics in public procurement: Implications for innovation in the health-care sector," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 78-90.
    14. Folorunsho M. Ajide & James T. Dada, 2023. "Poverty, entrepreneurship, and economic growth in Africa," Poverty & Public Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(2), pages 199-226, June.
    15. Stroe, Silvia & Parida, Vinit & Wincent, Joakim, 2018. "Effectuation or causation: An fsQCA analysis of entrepreneurial passion, risk perception, and self-efficacy," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 265-272.
    16. Silveli Cristo-Andrade & João J. Ferreira, 2020. "Knowledge spillovers and strategic entrepreneurship: what researches and approaches?," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 263-286, March.
    17. David B. Audretsch & Maribel Guerrero, 2023. "Is ambidexterity the missing link between entrepreneurship, management, and innovation?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 1891-1918, December.
    18. Zofio, Jose Luis & Aparicio, Juan & Barbero, Javier & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, Jon Mikel, 2023. "The influence of bottlenecks on innovation systems performance: Put the slowest climber first," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    19. Sophie BOUTILLIER & Dimitri UZUNIDIS, 2015. "De la société salariale à la société entrepreneuriale. Une analyse critique [From the salarial to the entrepreneurial society: A critical analysis]," Working Papers 16, Réseau de Recherche sur l’Innovation. / Research Network on Innovation.
    20. Ignatov Augustin, 2019. "Entrepreneurship and Bureaucracy: Impact upon Innovation and Economic Competitiveness of the European Union," Romanian Economic Journal, Department of International Business and Economics from the Academy of Economic Studies Bucharest, vol. 22(72), pages 36-59, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Innovation system; innovation policy; innovation performance; Sweden; indicators; input; output;
    All these keywords.

    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.

    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 bibliographic 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.

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

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.