An assessment of the Innovation Union Scoreboard as a tool to analyse national innovation capacities: The case of Switzerland

D. Foray, H. Hollanders

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

This article investigates the Innovation Union Scoreboard (IUS) as a tool to carry out case studies about national innovation capacities in the case of given countries. It clarifies what this statistical framework can offer in terms of information and insights on strengths and weaknesses of a given country relative to the other countries which are also involved in this statistical exercise. The investigation is carried out through the case study of Switzerland; a country that is leading the IUS ranking for many years. The approach will therefore start with the full analysis of the IUS results for Switzerland. Then other statistical evidence as well as qualitative insights will be added to the discussion to identify what really matters to explain success and the potential weaknesses the Swiss policy should care about. The conclusion is that if the IUS can be considered as an important tool to inform innovation policies, it should not be applied in an isolated manner or without relying on other types of indicators and information on the system considered.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)213-228
Number of pages16
JournalResearch Evaluation
Volume24
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Keywords

  • Composite indicator
  • Evaluation
  • Innovation
  • Innovation union scoreboard
  • Switzerland

Cite this

@article{4050c965069445b295e890b72e4fd84f,
title = "An assessment of the Innovation Union Scoreboard as a tool to analyse national innovation capacities: The case of Switzerland",
abstract = "This article investigates the Innovation Union Scoreboard (IUS) as a tool to carry out case studies about national innovation capacities in the case of given countries. It clarifies what this statistical framework can offer in terms of information and insights on strengths and weaknesses of a given country relative to the other countries which are also involved in this statistical exercise. The investigation is carried out through the case study of Switzerland; a country that is leading the IUS ranking for many years. The approach will therefore start with the full analysis of the IUS results for Switzerland. Then other statistical evidence as well as qualitative insights will be added to the discussion to identify what really matters to explain success and the potential weaknesses the Swiss policy should care about. The conclusion is that if the IUS can be considered as an important tool to inform innovation policies, it should not be applied in an isolated manner or without relying on other types of indicators and information on the system considered.",
keywords = "Composite indicator, Evaluation, Innovation, Innovation union scoreboard, Switzerland",
author = "D. Foray and H. Hollanders",
note = "Export Date: 25 May 2016 Correspondence Address: Foray, D.; College of Management, EPFLSwitzerland References: Agrawal, A., Cockburn, I., The anchor tenant hypothesis: Exploring the role of large, local, R&D intensive firms in regional innovation systems (2003) International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21, pp. 1227-1253; Agrawal, A., Cockburn, I., Oettl, A., (2010) Innovation and the Firm Size Diversity Hypothesis, Preliminary Draft, , Boston University; Arundel, A., Hollanders, H., (2005) 2005 European Innovation Scoreboard-Policy, Indicators and Targets: Measuring the Impacts of Innovation Policies, , Brussels: European Commission, DG Enterprise; Arvanitis, S., Hollenstein, H., (2012) Innovationsaktivit{\"a}ten in der Schweizer Wirtschaft-Determinanten, Auswirkungen, F{\"o}rderpolitik, Reihe, , Kompaktwissen, Band 15, R{\"u}egger Verlag, Z{\"u}rich/Chur; Arvanitis, S., Sydow, N., Woerter, M., Do specific forms of university-industry knowledge transfer have different impacts on the performance of private enterprises? An empirical analysis based on Swiss data (2008) Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, pp. 504-533; Breiding, R.J., Schwarz, G., (2011) Wirtschaftswunder Schweiz-Ursprung und Zukunft Eines Erfoldsmodells, , Z{\"u}rich: Verlag Neue Z{\"u}rcher Zeitung; Conti, A.M., Gaul{\'e}, P., (2009) Is Switzerland Doing Well in University Technology Transfer?, , College of Management, draft report, EPFL; Cornell University, INSEAD and WIPO, (2014) The Global Innovation Index, , Ithaca and Geneva: Fontainebleau; (2011), http://erawatch.jrc.ec.europa.eu/erawatch/opencms/information/country_pages/ch/countryERC, (2012) ERC Advanced Grants 2012 Outcome: Indicative Statistics, , Brussels: European Research Council; European Commission, (2012) Internationalisation of Business Investments in R&D and Analysis of Their Economic Impact, , DG Research and Innovation, EUR 25195; Foray, D., Enriching the indicator base for the economics of knowledge, in OECD (2007) Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators in A Changing World, , Paris: OECD; Foray, D., Van Ark, B., Knowledge for Growth: European issues and policy challenges (2008) Knowledge for Growth, , European Commission, EUR 23725; Foray, D., David, P.A., Hall, B., Smart specialisation: The concept (2010) Knowledge for Growth: Prospects for Science, Technology and Innovation, , European Union, EUR 24047; Furman, J., Porter, M., Stern, S., The determinants of national innovation capacity (2002) Research Policy, 31, pp. 899-933; Hollanders, H., Janz, N., Scoreboards and indicator reports (2013) Handbook of Innovation Indicators and Measurement, pp. 279-297. , Gault, F. (ed.) Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; Hollanders, H., Tarantola, S., Innovation Union Scoreboard 2010-methodology report (2011) INNO Metrics 2011-2012 Report, , http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/files/ius-methodology-report_en.pdf, Brussels: European Commission, DG Enterprise; Jaffe, A., (2002) Measuring Knowledge, Nsf-Oecd Seminar on the Knowledge Economy, , Washington DC; Kenward, M., Swiss innovation is on a roll (2011) Science/ Business, , www.sciencebusiness.net, originally published on on 16 May 2011; M{\"u}hlemann, S., Schweri, J., Winkelmann, R., Wolter, S., An empirical analysis of the decision to train apprentices (2007) Labour, 21, pp. 419-441; OECD, (2012) Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2012, , Paris: OECD; Saint Paul, G., Employment protection, international specialisation and innovation (2002) European Economic Review, 46, pp. 375-395; Sajeva, M., Gatelli, D., Tarantola, S., Hollanders, H., (2005) EIS Methodology Report, 2005 Trend Chart Report, , Brussels: European Commission, DG Enterprise; Wolter, S., M{\"u}hlemann, S., Schweri, J., (2003) Why Some Firms Train Apprentices and Many Others Do Not, , Bonn: IZA DP no. 916; Wyckoff, A., Schaaper, M., The changing dynamics of the global market for the highly skilled (2006) Advancing Knowledge and the Knowledge Economy, , Kahin. and Foray. (eds) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1093/reseval/rvu036",
language = "English",
volume = "24",
pages = "213--228",
journal = "Research Evaluation",
issn = "0958-2029",
publisher = "Beech Tree Publishing",
number = "2",

}

An assessment of the Innovation Union Scoreboard as a tool to analyse national innovation capacities : The case of Switzerland. / Foray, D.; Hollanders, H.

In: Research Evaluation, Vol. 24, No. 2, 2015, p. 213-228.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - An assessment of the Innovation Union Scoreboard as a tool to analyse national innovation capacities

T2 - The case of Switzerland

AU - Foray, D.

AU - Hollanders, H.

N1 - Export Date: 25 May 2016 Correspondence Address: Foray, D.; College of Management, EPFLSwitzerland References: Agrawal, A., Cockburn, I., The anchor tenant hypothesis: Exploring the role of large, local, R&D intensive firms in regional innovation systems (2003) International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21, pp. 1227-1253; Agrawal, A., Cockburn, I., Oettl, A., (2010) Innovation and the Firm Size Diversity Hypothesis, Preliminary Draft, , Boston University; Arundel, A., Hollanders, H., (2005) 2005 European Innovation Scoreboard-Policy, Indicators and Targets: Measuring the Impacts of Innovation Policies, , Brussels: European Commission, DG Enterprise; Arvanitis, S., Hollenstein, H., (2012) Innovationsaktivitäten in der Schweizer Wirtschaft-Determinanten, Auswirkungen, Förderpolitik, Reihe, , Kompaktwissen, Band 15, Rüegger Verlag, Zürich/Chur; Arvanitis, S., Sydow, N., Woerter, M., Do specific forms of university-industry knowledge transfer have different impacts on the performance of private enterprises? An empirical analysis based on Swiss data (2008) Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, pp. 504-533; Breiding, R.J., Schwarz, G., (2011) Wirtschaftswunder Schweiz-Ursprung und Zukunft Eines Erfoldsmodells, , Zürich: Verlag Neue Zürcher Zeitung; Conti, A.M., Gaulé, P., (2009) Is Switzerland Doing Well in University Technology Transfer?, , College of Management, draft report, EPFL; Cornell University, INSEAD and WIPO, (2014) The Global Innovation Index, , Ithaca and Geneva: Fontainebleau; (2011), http://erawatch.jrc.ec.europa.eu/erawatch/opencms/information/country_pages/ch/countryERC, (2012) ERC Advanced Grants 2012 Outcome: Indicative Statistics, , Brussels: European Research Council; European Commission, (2012) Internationalisation of Business Investments in R&D and Analysis of Their Economic Impact, , DG Research and Innovation, EUR 25195; Foray, D., Enriching the indicator base for the economics of knowledge, in OECD (2007) Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators in A Changing World, , Paris: OECD; Foray, D., Van Ark, B., Knowledge for Growth: European issues and policy challenges (2008) Knowledge for Growth, , European Commission, EUR 23725; Foray, D., David, P.A., Hall, B., Smart specialisation: The concept (2010) Knowledge for Growth: Prospects for Science, Technology and Innovation, , European Union, EUR 24047; Furman, J., Porter, M., Stern, S., The determinants of national innovation capacity (2002) Research Policy, 31, pp. 899-933; Hollanders, H., Janz, N., Scoreboards and indicator reports (2013) Handbook of Innovation Indicators and Measurement, pp. 279-297. , Gault, F. (ed.) Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; Hollanders, H., Tarantola, S., Innovation Union Scoreboard 2010-methodology report (2011) INNO Metrics 2011-2012 Report, , http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/files/ius-methodology-report_en.pdf, Brussels: European Commission, DG Enterprise; Jaffe, A., (2002) Measuring Knowledge, Nsf-Oecd Seminar on the Knowledge Economy, , Washington DC; Kenward, M., Swiss innovation is on a roll (2011) Science/ Business, , www.sciencebusiness.net, originally published on on 16 May 2011; Mühlemann, S., Schweri, J., Winkelmann, R., Wolter, S., An empirical analysis of the decision to train apprentices (2007) Labour, 21, pp. 419-441; OECD, (2012) Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2012, , Paris: OECD; Saint Paul, G., Employment protection, international specialisation and innovation (2002) European Economic Review, 46, pp. 375-395; Sajeva, M., Gatelli, D., Tarantola, S., Hollanders, H., (2005) EIS Methodology Report, 2005 Trend Chart Report, , Brussels: European Commission, DG Enterprise; Wolter, S., Mühlemann, S., Schweri, J., (2003) Why Some Firms Train Apprentices and Many Others Do Not, , Bonn: IZA DP no. 916; Wyckoff, A., Schaaper, M., The changing dynamics of the global market for the highly skilled (2006) Advancing Knowledge and the Knowledge Economy, , Kahin. and Foray. (eds) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - This article investigates the Innovation Union Scoreboard (IUS) as a tool to carry out case studies about national innovation capacities in the case of given countries. It clarifies what this statistical framework can offer in terms of information and insights on strengths and weaknesses of a given country relative to the other countries which are also involved in this statistical exercise. The investigation is carried out through the case study of Switzerland; a country that is leading the IUS ranking for many years. The approach will therefore start with the full analysis of the IUS results for Switzerland. Then other statistical evidence as well as qualitative insights will be added to the discussion to identify what really matters to explain success and the potential weaknesses the Swiss policy should care about. The conclusion is that if the IUS can be considered as an important tool to inform innovation policies, it should not be applied in an isolated manner or without relying on other types of indicators and information on the system considered.

AB - This article investigates the Innovation Union Scoreboard (IUS) as a tool to carry out case studies about national innovation capacities in the case of given countries. It clarifies what this statistical framework can offer in terms of information and insights on strengths and weaknesses of a given country relative to the other countries which are also involved in this statistical exercise. The investigation is carried out through the case study of Switzerland; a country that is leading the IUS ranking for many years. The approach will therefore start with the full analysis of the IUS results for Switzerland. Then other statistical evidence as well as qualitative insights will be added to the discussion to identify what really matters to explain success and the potential weaknesses the Swiss policy should care about. The conclusion is that if the IUS can be considered as an important tool to inform innovation policies, it should not be applied in an isolated manner or without relying on other types of indicators and information on the system considered.

KW - Composite indicator

KW - Evaluation

KW - Innovation

KW - Innovation union scoreboard

KW - Switzerland

U2 - 10.1093/reseval/rvu036

DO - 10.1093/reseval/rvu036

M3 - Article

VL - 24

SP - 213

EP - 228

JO - Research Evaluation

JF - Research Evaluation

SN - 0958-2029

IS - 2

ER -