here - Global Innovation Index

Trade and Development Symposium
At the Ninth WTO Ministerial Conference
Bali, Indonesia, 3-5 December 2013
The Global Innovation Index 2013:
Measuring innovation in the Post 2015 Development Agenda
Daniela Benavente
Lead Researcher and Project Manager,
The Global Innovation Index 2011-13
1
The Global Innovation Index 2013
1.
2.
Rationale and methodology
Findings
1.
2.
3.
4.
While an innovation divide persists…
…innovation is a global game
GII in practise: A tool for action
GII sub-theme in 2013: The local
dynamics of innovation
2
Rationale of the
Global Innovation Index
• The GII recognizes the key role of innovation as a
driver of economic growth and prosperity
• A global measurement and benchmarking tool was
required to facilitate public-private dialogue
• Need to move beyond simplistic and traditional
metrics (R&D, patents) towards a modern, holistic,
and inclusive vision applicable to developed and
emerging economies
• Measuring innovation is a ‚journey‘ and not an endgame
3
The GII is a multi-stakeholder effort
Co-published by Cornell
University, INSEAD and WIPO
Four Knowledge Partners: Booz &
Company, the Confederation of
Indian Industry, du, and Huawei
Independent statistical audit by
the Joint Research Centre of the
European Commission
International Advisory Board
4
A tool for action for 142 countries, around 84 metrics
60 hard data, 19 indices, 5 survey questions
5
GII 2013 rankings – Top 10
Input Sub-Index
Output Sub-Index
GII
Efficiency Ratio
1.
Singapore
1.
Switzerland
1.
Mali
1.
Switzerland
2.
Hong Kong
(China)
United States of
America
2.
3.
Netherlands
Sweden
2.
3.
Moldova, Rep.
Guinea
2.
3.
Sweden
United Kingdom
4.
5.
United Kingdom
Malta
4.
5.
Malta
Swaziland
4.
5.
6.
7.
Luxembourg
Iceland
6.
7.
Indonesia
Nigeria
Netherlands
United States of
America
8.
9.
Finland
Israel
8.
9.
Kuwait
Costa Rica
6.
7.
Finland
Hong Kong (China)
8.
9.
Singapore
Denmark
3.
4.
5.
United Kingdom
Sweden
6.
7.
Finland
Switzerland
8.
9.
Denmark
Canada
10. Germany
10. Venezuela,
Bolivarian Rep.
10. Ireland
10. Netherlands
GII top 10 countries: Singapore and the US would have kept their 3rd and 10th positions
of 2012 had we not fine-tuned the GII framework (Annex 2, 20 indicators). Efficiency
ratios evolve around 1 and are neutral to stages in development: high ratios often
6
reflect blatant deficiencies in the input side; still show doing more from less.
The innovation gap
Stability at the top
Rankings remain
correlated with
income levels.
Switzerland comes
1st and Sweden 2nd
since 2011. The top
10 or top 25 might
swap rankings, but
not a single country
moved in or out in
2013.
7
Spiky regional dispersion of innovation
8
9
Regional gaps can
be bridged
For example, in
Business
sophistication South
East Asia and Oceania
comes before Europe;
LAC comes before
Northern Africa and
Western Asia; SubSaharan Africa comes
before Central and
Southern Asia.
10
Fast movers: Scores are often remarkably close;
small changes can impact rankings significantly
Uganda and Costa Rica are
now, incidentally, in the
category of innovation
learners.
Cambodia, Mexico, Uruguay,
Indonesia, Ecuador jumped by
15 or more positions in 2013.
There are only 2.7 (over 100)
points between positions 51
and 75; 4.5 between 76 and
100.
11
Learners are 18 economies out-performing their peers relative to GDP per capita:
Moldova, China, India, Uganda, Armenia, Viet Nam, Malaysia, Jordan, Mongolia, Mali,
Kenya, Senegal, Hungary, Georgia, Montenegro, Costa Rica, Tajikistan, and Latvia.
12
Côte d’Ivoire and Benin could get inspiration from Sub-Sahara African learners with
similar per capita level of income: Uganda, Senegal and Kenya.
13
Mapping the GII rankings
is not the whole story
The GII helps identify
targeted policies, good
practices, and other levers to
foster innovation.
An online interactive platform
will list strengths and
weaknesses; compare data
for two countries, chart data
for up to 5 countries.
The GII rankings attract media
attention, but they are not
the main part of the GII.
14
Example: Strengths and Weaknesses of Indonesia
(percent rank cutoffs at 66.6% for S and 10.1% for W)
Strengths
• 2.2.2 Graduates in science and engineering (66.6)
• 2.3.3 QS university ranking average score of top 3
universities (75.8)
• 3.2.4 Gross capital formation (92.8)
• 4.2.1 Ease of protecting investors (66.6)
• 4.2.3 Total value of stocks traded (71.2)
• 5.2.1 University/industry research collaboration (72.5)
• 5.2.2 State of cluster development (77.0)
• 5.3.1 Royalties and license fees payments (% of service
imports) (81.6)
• 6.2.1 Growth rate of GDP per person engaged (91.4)
• 6.2.5 High-tech and medium-high-tech output (66.6)
• 7.1 Intangible assets (89.1)
• 7.2.5 Creative goods exports (75.6)
Weaknesses
• 1 Institutions (2.8)
• 1.2 Regulatory environment (2.1)
• 1.2.3 Cost of redundancy dismissal (0.0)
• 1.3.2 Ease of resolving insolvency (9.2)
• 2.1.4 Assessment in reading, mathematics, and
science (10.1)
• 2.2.3 Tertiary inbound mobility (7.3)
• 2.2.4 Gross tertiary outbound enrolment (7.1)
• 2.3.2 Gross expenditure on R&D (GERD) (9.3)
• 4.1.1 Ease of getting credit (9.9)
• 5.1 Knowledge workers (0.7)
• 5.1.1 Employment in knowledge-intensive services
(8.6)
• 5.1.2 Firms offering formal training (0.0)
• 5.1.3 GERD performed by business enterprise (% of
GDP) (6.0)
• 5.2.5 Patent families filed in at least three offices (0.0)
• 6.1.4 Scientific and technical publications (2.1)
Note: Cutoffs are calculated for each country on the basis of the 10th highest (strengths) and 10th lowest (weaknesses) percent ranks for
that country, at the indicator level. Cutoffs are also applied to pillars, sub-pillars and indices (in bold pink). 66.6% of countries have a
lower percentage of graduates in science and engineering than Indonesia. Switzerland (GII #1) has cutoffs at 98.2% and 59.2%; Yemen
(GII #142) at 39.8% and 0.8%.
15
Quality matters
Not all innovation inputs
and outputs are of equal
quality and impact.
BRICs are the best
performers among
middle-income countries
on 3 key indicators
included this year
• top 3 universities,
• patent family
applications
• publications citations
Top 18 positions taken by
high-income economies.
Among middle-income countries, patent filing in more than three offices is not
prevalent, except in China (lower level than average for HI economies). Elite
universities in all BRIC countries. Four Latin American countries in the list; the region
saw an average increase in rankings by 5 positions this year.
Trade-related indicators
in the Global Innovation Index
3 Infrastructure
6 Knowledge & technology outputs
• 3.2.3 Logistics performance*
• 3.3.3 ISO 14001 environmental certificates/bn PPP$
GDP
• 6.1.1 Domestic resident patent ap/bn PPP$ GDP
• 6.1.2 PCT resident patent ap/bn PPP$ GDP
• 6.1.3 Domestic res utility model ap/bn PPP$ GDP
• 6.2.4 ISO 9001 quality certificates/bn PPP$ GDP
• 6.3.1 Royalty & license fees receipts, % service exports
• 6.3.2 High-tech exports less re-exports, %
• 6.3.3 Comm., computer & info. services exports, %
• 6.3.4 FDI net outflows, % GDP
4 Market sophistication
• 4.2.1 Ease of protecting investors*
• 4.3.1 Applied tariff rate, weighted mean, %
• 4.3.2 Non-agricultural mkt access weighted tariff, %
• 4.3.3 Intensity of local competition**
5 Business sophistication
• 5.2.5 Patent families 3+ offices/bn PPP$ GDP
• 5.3.1 Royalty & license fees payments, % service
imports
• 5.3.2 High-tech imports less re-imports, %
• 5.3.3 Comm., computer & info. services imports, %
• 5.3.4 FDI net inflows, % GDP
7 Creative outputs
• 7.1.1 Domestic res trademark reg/bn PPP$ GDP
• 7.1.2 Madrid trademark registrations/bn PPP$ GDP
• 7.2.1 Audio-visual & related services exports, %
• 7.2.5 Creative goods exports, %
• 7.3.1 Generic top-level domains (TLDs)/th pop. 15–69
• 7.3.2 Country-code TLDs/th pop. 15–69
Trade statistics are among the most reliable, with good country-coverage and
granularity at the product/service/sector level. Current developments in trade in
value-added with the “Made in the World Initiative” led by the World Trade
Organization and the OECD might change completely the picture in the future. 17
Missing data is an issue
Country
Belize
Lesotho
Namibia
Togo
Panama
Mali
Indonesia
Guinea
Nicaragua
Fiji
Uganda
Niger
China
GII rank
90% confidence
interval
Range #of
positions/142
Indicator
coverage
102
124
109
139
86
106
85
126
115
97
89
131
35
[37, 102]
[81, 124]
[84, 123]
[101, 139]
[72, 110]
[103, 140]
[82, 116]
[93, 126]
[96, 129]
[77, 109]
[90, 122]
[103, 133]
[33, 63]
65
43
39
38
38
37
34
33
33
32
32
30
30
65.5%
64.3%
82.1%
69.0%
90.5%
81.0%
94.0%
69.0%
75.0%
69.0%
85.7%
72.6%
95.2%
90% confidence intervals based on audit: 13 countries with ranges of 30+, 19 with 2029, 55 with 10-19, 55 with 9 or less. Missing data a real problem for rankings
robustness. The audit is an incentive for countries to improve the collection of
statistics. Indicator coverage is 100% for Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, and Romania. 18
Independent
statistical audit
Performed by the Joint Research
Centre of the European
Commission.
Globally, missing data are
problematic, particularly for the
output sub-index.
Example: in the Middle East and
Northern Africa region, missing
data are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Institutions 0.0%
Human capital and research
36.2%
Infrastructure 1.7%
Market sophistication 10.3%
Business sophistication 34.1%
Knowledge and technology
outputs 36.6%
Creative outputs 27.6%
Published
rankings
Audit
(Annex 3)
No imputation of
missing data
Imputation of
missing data
Arithmetic averages Geometric averages
Fixed weights
Random weights
One calculation
4,000 Monte Carlo
simulations
One ranking for GII,
Input and Output
Sub-indices
90% confidence
intervals for each
ranking
19
“Maybe I can beat you at my own game!”
Country-specific strategies and the efficient frontier
Knowledge
Human
and
capital and
Market
Business
technology
Institutions
research
Infrastructure sophistication sophistication
outputs
GII weights
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.25
Country-specific weights and efficient frontier (min 0.05 and max 0.20)
Switzerland
0.06
0.18
0.11
0.08
0.19
0.19
Hong Kong (China)
0.20
0.05
0.20
0.20
0.19
0.05
Singapore
0.12
0.19
0.19
0.10
0.20
0.14
Sweden
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.17
0.05
0.13
United States of America
0.12
0.20
0.05
0.20
0.18
0.20
United Kingdom
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.05
0.06
Finland
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.05
0.11
0.19
Netherlands
0.20
0.12
0.20
0.05
0.20
0.05
Ireland
0.20
0.20
0.05
0.20
0.12
0.18
Denmark
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.05
0.06
Canada
0.20
0.20
0.19
0.20
0.05
0.05
Norway
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.05
0.10
0.05
Luxembourg
0.20
0.20
0.11
0.05
0.19
0.05
Israel
0.05
0.20
0.08
0.20
0.20
0.20
Efficient
Creative
frontier
outputs
rank
0.25
0.19
0.12
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.09
0.05
0.18
0.05
0.09
0.10
0.20
0.20
0.07
1
1
1
2
2
3
4
7
7
8
9
9
10
10
GII
rank
1
7
8
2
5
3
6
4
10
9
11
16
12
14
Diff.
6
7
3
2
(3)
3
1
2
7
2
4
Country-specific efficient weights might depart from the “innovation model”
imposed by the GII: efficient frontiers and ranks for each economy defined by Data
Envelopment Analysis (Annex 3). Three countries at the efficient frontier, ranked 1;
Switzerland only country with strengths in all 7 pillars. Among the top ten, the US and
20
Israel only countries with strength in Knowledge and technolofgy outputs.
The local dynamics of innovation
o
Despite the economic crisis, innovation is alive and well. Research and development spending
levels are surpassing 2008 levels in most countries.
o
The theme of the GII 2013 is on ‘the local dynamics of innovation’. Seven analytical chapters shed
light on the factors leading to the excellence of innovation hubs, the role of local ‘champions, the
interaction of clusters with local, inter-regional, and global networks and value chains, with
examples from India, Uruguay, the Middle East and Northern Africa, and Europe, among others.
o
Local dynamics are bustling in established hubs such as Baden-Württemberg in Germany, the
Capital Region of the Republic of Korea, Guangdong Province in China, Stredni Cechy in the Czech
Republic, the Mumbai region in India, Tel Aviv in Israel, São Paulo in Brazil, etc.
o
The report signals a shift from the tendency to duplicate successful initiatives. Original innovation
ecosystem are thriving around the world.
o
In New York City, Cornell University and the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology were invited
to set up the NYC Tech Campus on Roosevelt Island, aimed at attracting a new talent pool, lead to
innovation, and impact the economy of the surrounding region.
21
Thank you for
your attention
www.globalinnovationindex.org
[email protected]
22