State of an innovation system: theoretical and empirical advance towards an innovation efficiency index
Innovation is currently seen as a cornerstone not only for economic development but also as an intrinsic human activity that could help to face the great challenges of human kind. Given the importance of innovation in the new European 2020 Strategy, measuring progress but also monitoring what drives innovation becomes crucial for policy development. Following upon this strategy the new European flag initiative “Innovation Union” called for a new “single” indicator on innovation. Currently the information infrastructure on innovation in Europe contains a number of indicators. Most of the current indicators at the national or sector levels use a performance theoretical framework based on an efficiency model of inputs and outputs. The last five editions of CIS have been a bastion of innovation policy research during the last decade. Despite this, CIS has been criticised for not having an umbrella framework that unifies its different underpinnings to explain what drives innovation to actual innovation and economic outcomes. In this paper we propose a framework that enables the theoretical and empirical linkages between the drivers of innovation to innovation performance via the integration of core features determining innovative behaviour in to a single composite. This index enables to assess the total propensity of firms to innovate and assess the relative innovation performance at the sector and country level. The approach adopted here to create the index overcomes long standing theoretical and methodological issues related to the reduction of complexity in a meaningful form, scope, aggregation, normalisation and validation of innovation composites. The empirical demonstration of the index was done using CIS4 data and the results validate the theoretical structure and robustness of the proposed model. This enables its replication for innovation policy analysis in different settings. The model underlying the proposed index provides not only a depiction of the efficiency of the innovation system but also a link to economic performance and to the factors that determine relative performance.
|Date of creation:||28 Oct 2011|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Nasierowski, W. & Arcelus, F. J., 2003. "On the efficiency of national innovation systems," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 215-234, September.
- Malerba, Franco, 2002. "Sectoral systems of innovation and production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 247-264, February.
- Laurens Cherchye & Wim Moesen & Nicky Rogge & Tom Van Puyenbroeck & Michaela Saisana & A. Saltelli & R. Liska & S. Tarantola, 2006. "Creating Composite Indicators with DEA and Robustness Analysis: the case of the Technology Achievement Index," Public Economics Working Paper Series ces0613, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centrum voor Economische Studiën, Working Group Public Economics.
- Carlos Montalvo, 2007. "Explaining and predicting the impact of regulation on innovation: towards a dynamic model," International Journal of Public Policy, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 2(1/2), pages 5-31.
- Guan, Jiancheng & Chen, Kaihua, 2012. "Modeling the relative efficiency of national innovation systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 102-115.
- Giulio Cainelli & Rinaldo Evangelista & Maria Savona, 2006. "Innovation and economic performance in services: a firm-level analysis," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 435-458, May.
- Hagedoorn, John & Cloodt, Myriam, 2003. "Measuring innovative performance: is there an advantage in using multiple indicators?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1365-1379, September.
- Laurens Cherchye & Wim Moesen & Tom Puyenbroeck, 2004.
"Legitimately Diverse, yet Comparable: On Synthesizing Social Inclusion Performance in the EU,"
Journal of Common Market Studies,
Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(5), pages 919-955, December.
- Laurens Cherchye & Wim Moesen & Tom Van Puyenbroeck, 2003. "Legitimately Diverse, yet Comparable: On Synthesising Social Inclusion Performance in the EU," Public Economics Working Paper Series ces0301, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centrum voor Economische Studiën, Working Group Public Economics.
- Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
- Katz, J. Sylvan, 2006. "Indicators for complex innovation systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 893-909, September.
- Carlsson, Bo & Jacobsson, Staffan & Holmen, Magnus & Rickne, Annika, 2002. "Innovation systems: analytical and methodological issues," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 233-245, February.
- Alfred Kleinknecht & Kees Van Montfort & Erik Brouwer, 2002. "The Non-Trivial Choice between Innovation Indicators," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(2), pages 109-121.
- Chris Freeman & Luc Soete, 1997. "The Economics of Industrial Innovation, 3rd Edition," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 3, volume 1, number 0262061953, June.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:38002. 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: (Ekkehart Schlicht)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.