Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Innovation, Employment and Growth Policy Issues in the EU and the US pp 245–271Cite as

Benchmarking Innovation Performance on the Regional Level: Approach and Policy Implications of the European Innovation Scoreboard for Countries and Regions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 631 Accesses

Benchmarking is a methodology which measures processes, performances and results of the own region (firm) and compares the gathered data with those of other (better) regions (firms) by using indicators (benchmarks). The goal is to learn from the “Best”. Hence, benchmarking can be understood as a continuous systematic process to compare the success of organisations, functions, processes, regions, policies or firms with the “best” aiming at adapting success experiences and improving own procedures in order to exceed the best performers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    National data sources were used whenever Eurostat and OECD data were not available.

  2. 2.

    Countries above both the average EU25-trend (SII growth rates) and the current average SIIEU25performance (Innovation leaders).

  3. 3.

    Countries above the average SIIEU25 performance but below the current average SIIEU25 performance (Innovation followers).

  4. 4.

    Countries below the average EU25-trend (SII growth rates) but above current average SIIEU25 performance.

  5. 5.

    Countries below both the average EU25-trend (SII growth rates) and the current average SIIEU25 performance.

  6. 6.

    European -Commission, 2006, p. 3.

  7. 7.

    For the indicators 1.3 (broadband penetration rate), 1.4 (life long learning), 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.6, 4.3, 4.4, and 5.5 (high-tech manufacturing value added) time series are only available for a very small number of new member states and just a few years.

  8. 8.

    cf. European Commission (2006), p. 17.

  9. 9.

    These are the indicators 1, 2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.6 to 2.13, 3.1, 4.2 to 4.7; see also Figs. 13.4, 13.5 and 13.6.

  10. 10.

    cf. Iking, 2007, 83 ff.

  11. 11.

    cf. BMBF (2005b), 7 ff.

  12. 12.

    cf. Iking, 2007, 86 ff.

  13. 13.

    BMBF (2005a), p. 78 and Table 10-1 on p. 81.

  14. 14.

    ZEW (2003), p. 2.

  15. 15.

    cf. Mathias Göbel in http://www.lv1.ifkomhessen.de/halbwert.htm

  16. 16.

    Iking (2007), p. 92.

  17. 17.

    cf. Iking (2007), 94 ff.

  18. 18.

    Ibid. 94 ff.

  19. 19.

    cf. RUFIS (2007), p. 11.

  20. 20.

    NIW (2005), 84 ff.

  21. 21.

    cf. Iking (2007), p. 99.

  22. 22.

    Though, in NRW work more people in the future branch biotechnology as for example in Bavaria or Baden-Württemberg, see Wirtschaftswoche (2007), p. 60. The biotech firms are largely concentrated in Bavaria, Baden-Württemberg, Hesse and NRW; see Statistisches Bundesamt (2003), p. 20.

  23. 23.

    In autumn 2007, the Federal Government (BmBF) launched a competition “Health Region of the Future” which is to support the five best regions in improving the growth potentials of the health industry by granting 10 million over a period of four years. The competition aims at establishing networks between research, development and treatment of patients in regional health care. http://www.bmbf.de (press release 135/2007), compare also FTD (2007).

  24. 24.

    cf. Axel (2006).

  25. 25.

    cf. Fraunhofer Institut für Integrierte Schaltungen (2005).

  26. 26.

    The particular importance of geographic location can be shown quite good with the example of Duisburg, which is connected in a perfect way to the German road, rail and water way system. The “Duisport” develops already to one of the leading logistic places within Europe.; cf. Wirtschaftswoche Nr. 25 from 18th of June 2007,66 ff.

  27. 27.

    Romer (1986, 1990).

  28. 28.

    The data are taken from the IAB-Betriebspanel; see also Iking 2007, Table 26, p. 119).

  29. 29.

    successful technology transfer mechanism used in Norway.

References

  • BMBF. (2005a). Bericht zur technologischen Leistungsfähigkeit Deutschlands 05. Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • BMBF. (2005b). Studiensituation und studentische Orientierungen, 9. Studierendensurvey an Universitäten und Fachhochschulen, Bonn, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2007a). European Innovation Scoreboard 2006 – Strength and Weaknesses report, pp. 34–36,http://www.proinno-europe.eu/admin/uploaded_documents/EIS2006_strenghts-weaknesses.pdf

  • European Commission. (2007b). 2006 European Innovation Scoreboard database, http://www.proinno-europe.eu

  • European Commission. (2006). European Innovation Scoreboard 2006 – Comparative analysis of innovation performance, Luxembourg, http://www.proinno-europe.eu/doc/EIS2006_final.pdf

  • Financial Times Deutschland. (2007). (Grit Beecken und Lukas Heiny), Gesundheitswirtschaft – Wettbewerb der Regionen. FTD.de vom 30.6.2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraunhofer Institut für Integrierte Schaltungen. (2005). Arbeitsgruppe für Technologien der Logistik-Dienstleistungswirtschaft ATL; Logistikstandort Deutschland: Eine Studie zu Potenzialen aktiver Vermarktung des Logistikstandorts Deutschland im europäischen und globalen Standort – Wettbewerb, im Auftrag der “Invest in Germany GmbH”; Nürnberg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathias, G. Halbwertzeit von Wissen, http://www.lv1.ifkomhessen.de/halbwert.html

  • Axel, G. (2006). Logistik ist Deutschlands heimliche Paradedisziplin, in: Handelsblatt vom 08.02.06

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernhard, I. (2007). Regional Innovation Scoreboard 2006 – Results for North Rhine Westphalia, Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg in national and European comparison, Mülheim an der Ruhr, http://www.zenit.de/d/beratung/innovationsberatung/reg_ref/download/MasterdokumentRegIS2006_eng.pdf

  • Niedersächsisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (NIW) (2005). Forschungs- und Entwicklungsaktivitäten im internationalen Vergleich, No.7-2005. Hannover.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul, R. (1986). Increasing returns and long-run growth, Journal of Political Economy, 94(5), 1002–1037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paul, R. (1990). Endogenous Technological Change, Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), 71–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • RUFIS. (2007). Wo steht das Ruhrgebiet im Innovationswettbewerb, ppt.-Präsentation by Rufis on 14th of March 2007 at Sparkasse Bochum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Statistisches Bundesamt. (Hrsg.). (2003). Unternehmen der Biotechnologie in Deutschland, Ergebnisse der Wiederholungsbefragung 2002, Wiesbaden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wirtschaftswoche. (2007). Logistisches Herz. WiWo No. 25 vom 18.6.2007, 66ff and Hand in Hand, pp. 58–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • ZEW. (2003). Hochschulabsolventen werden knapp, in: ZEW News 4/2003, S. 1-2, Mannheim, http://ftp://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/docus/dokumentation0303.pdf

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ZENIT - Zentrum für Innovation und Technik mbH, Mülheim, Germany

    Bernhard Iking

Authors
  1. Bernhard Iking
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Europäisches Institut für Internationale, Bergische Universität Wuppertal, Rainer-Gruenter-Straße 21, Wuppertal, 42119, Germany

    Paul J.J. Welfens

  2. Moore School of Business, University of South Carolina, College Street 1705, Columbia, 29208, U.S.A.

    John T. Addison

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Iking, B. (2009). Benchmarking Innovation Performance on the Regional Level: Approach and Policy Implications of the European Innovation Scoreboard for Countries and Regions. In: Welfens, P., Addison, J. (eds) Innovation, Employment and Growth Policy Issues in the EU and the US. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00631-9_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00631-9_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-00630-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-00631-9

  • eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation