IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/lucirc/2015_027.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Innovation Union Scoreboard is flawed: The Case of Sweden – not the innovation leader of the EU – updated version

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, Sweden has been, and still is, an innovation leader within the EU and one of the most innovative countries in Europe. In this paper, the performance of the Swedish national innovation system is analyzed using exactly the same data as those employed by the Innovation Union Scoreboard for the years 2014 and 2015. We argue that the Summary Innovation Index provided by the Innovation Union Scoreboard is highly misleading. Instead of merely calculating this Summary Innovation Index, the individual indicators that constitute this composite innovation indicator need to be analyzed in much greater depth in order to reach a correct measure of the performance of innovation systems. We argue that input and output indicators need to be considered as two separate types of indicators and each type should then be measured individually. Thereafter the input and output indicators should be compared to one another, as is normally done in productivity and efficiency measurements. To check whether our approach provides results similar to those of the Innovation Union Scoreboard (or not), we apply it and analyze the relative position of Sweden - appointed the innovation leader of the EU, by the EU. A theoretical background and reasons for selecting the indicators used are also given and a new position regarding Sweden’s innovation performance compared to the other EU countries is calculated. Our conclusion is that Sweden cannot be seen as an innovation leader in the EU. This means in turn 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 the innovation leader of the EU – updated version," Papers in Innovation Studies 2015/27, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:hhs:lucirc:2015_027
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://wp.circle.lu.se/upload/CIRCLE/workingpapers/201527_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. Grupp, Hariolf & Schubert, Torben, 2010. "Review and new evidence on composite innovation indicators for evaluating national performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 67-78, February.
    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. Charles Edquist & Nicholas S Vonortas & Jon M Zabala-Iturriagagoitia & Jakob Edler (ed.), 2015. "Public Procurement for Innovation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 15642.
    9. 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.
    10. Thomas Brenner & Tom Broekel, 2011. "Methodological Issues in Measuring Innovation Performance of Spatial Units," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(1), pages 7-37.
    11. 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.
    12. Thomas Brenner, 2014. "Science, Innovation and National Growth," Working Papers on Innovation and Space 2014-03, Philipps University Marburg, Department of Geography.
    13. Edquist, Charles & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, Jon Mikel, 2012. "Public Procurement for Innovation as mission-oriented innovation policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 1757-1769.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Furman, Jeffrey L. & Porter, Michael E. & Stern, Scott, 2002. "The determinants of national innovative capacity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 899-933, August.
    19. 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.
    20. Heidenreich, Martin, 2009. "Innovation patterns and location of European low- and medium-technology industries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 483-494, April.
    21. 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.
    22. Claire Nauwelaers & Rene Wintjes (ed.), 2008. "Innovation Policy in Europe," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 4131.
    23. Teemu Makkonen & Robert P. Have, 2013. "Benchmarking regional innovative performance: composite measures and direct innovation counts," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(1), pages 247-262, January.
    24. 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.
    25. Edquist, Charles, 2011. "Innovation Policy Design: Identification of Systemic Problems," Papers in Innovation Studies 2011/6, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    26. 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.
    27. 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.
    28. 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.
    29. 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. 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).
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Srholec Martin & Szkuta Katarzyna, 2016. "RIO Country Report 2015: Czech Republic," JRC Research Reports JRC101175, Joint Research Centre.
    6. 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.
    7. Jürgen Janger & Agnes Kügler, 2018. "Innovationseffizienz. Österreich im internationalen Vergleich," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 61111.
    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.
    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).

    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 being the innovation leader of the EU," Papers in Innovation Studies 2015/16, 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. 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.
    4. 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).
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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).
    8. 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.
    9. Attila Havas, 2016. "Social and Business Innovations: Are Common Measurement Approaches Possible?," Foresight-Russia Форсайт, CyberLeninka;Федеральное государственное автономное образовательное учреждение высшего образования «Национальный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики», vol. 10(2 (eng)), pages 58-80.
    10. 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).
    11. Borrás, Susana & Edquist, Charles, 2013. "The choice of innovation policy instruments," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(8), pages 1513-1522.
    12. Massimo Florio & Francesco Giffoni & Anna Giunta & Emanuela Sirtori, 2018. "Big science, learning, and innovation: evidence from CERN procurement," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 27(5), pages 915-936.
    13. 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.
    14. Hugo Erken & Piet Donselaar & Roy Thurik, 2018. "Total factor productivity and the role of entrepreneurship," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(6), pages 1493-1521, December.
    15. Julien Chicot & Mireille Matt, 2018. "Public procurement of innovation: a review of rationales, designs, and contributions to grand challenges," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(4), pages 480-492.
    16. Edquist, Charles, 2016. "The Swedish National Innovation Council: Innovation policy governance to replace linearity with holism," Papers in Innovation Studies 2016/24, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    17. Charles Edquist & Nicholas S. Vonortas & Jon Mikel Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, 2015. "Introduction," Chapters, in: Charles Edquist & Nicholas S Vonortas & Jon M Zabala-Iturriagagoitia & Jakob Edler (ed.), Public Procurement for Innovation, chapter 1, pages 1-32, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Attila Havas, 2015. "The persistent high-tech myth in the EC policy circles - Implications for the EU10 countries," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 1517, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    19. Edquist, Charles, 2018. "Towards a Holistic Innovation Policy: Can the Swedish National Innovation Council Serve as a Role Model?," Papers in Innovation Studies 2018/2, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    20. Radzivon Marozau & Maribel Guerrero & David Urbano, 2021. "Impacts of Universities in Different Stages of Economic Development," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 12(1), pages 1-21, March.

    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_027. 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.