1 / 19

February 11-13 Utrecht, Netherlands

”Constructing Regional Advantage: Towards State-of-the-Art Regional Innovation System Policy in Europe?” Jiří Blažek, Pavla Žížalová Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Science. February 11-13 Utrecht, Netherlands. Prague's Position in the CR.

taipa
Télécharger la présentation

February 11-13 Utrecht, Netherlands

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ”Constructing Regional Advantage: Towards State-of-the-Art Regional Innovation System Policy in Europe?”Jiří Blažek, Pavla ŽížalováCharles University in Prague, Faculty of Science February 11-13 Utrecht, Netherlands

  2. Prague's Position in the CR • Prague is generating approximately 25% of the Czech Republic’s GDP • dominant sector is the service sector (accounts for 80% of its GDP and 75% of its employment) • Prague concentrates about a half of the scientific and research potential of the CR

  3. Data available • I. Results of detailed regional (NUTS III) survey of innovation, R&D by Czech Stat. Office (2006). • Expenditures on R&D and its type (basic, applied), employment, innovation activities (4 types of innovations: product, process, marketing, organizational and its source – own, license, external R&D…). • collaboration patterns (type of collaborating insitutions). • II: Data from labour force survey – employment (only) in knowledge bases according to NACE clasification.

  4. Prague's Knowledge Base • analysis based upon statistical data on employment structure - 4 digit NACE • 1) shares of Prague on respective knowledge-bases in the Czech Republic were calculated • 2) size of individual knowledge-bases in Prague is compared

  5. Prague's Knowledge Base Other branches 72,3 % Symbolic 3,5 % 4,8 % Analytical Synthetic 19,3 %

  6. Prague's Knowledge Bases • Size of individual knowledge-bases– share in total employment (in %), 1995-2006

  7. Prague vs. Czech Republic • Shares of Prague on respective knowledge-base in the Czech Republic (according to employment - in %), 1995-2006

  8. Collaboration patterns • Analysis of the nature of collaboration patterns of relevant research institutions and universities in all 3 knowledge bases • Period analysed: 2002-2006 • Based on scientometric and patent indicators • Scientometric indicators – Web of Science database • Patent indicators – Czech Industrial Property Office Database

  9. First results: Scientometric indicators (1) • Total number of publications (articles): • Analytical: 6 530 • Synthetic: 11 478 • Symbolic: 217 In all knowledge bases international collaboration prevails • Share of co-authors from foreign institutions: • Analytical knowledge base institutions: 77 % • Synthetis knowledge base institutions: 75 % • Symbolic knowledge base institutions: 68 %

  10. First results: Scientometric indicators (2) • Share of Czech and foreign co-authors (co-institutions):

  11. First results: Scientometric indicators (3) • Universities are the most important collaboration partner • Slightly different patterns of collaboration among institutions from different knowledge bases • Synthetic knowledge base – stronger co-operation with private subjects • Analytical knowledge-base – higher number of publications

  12. First results: Scientometric indicators (4) • Co-author according to type of institutions (in %)

  13. First results (2) • Patent database • All in all very low number of patents • Very low level of „collaboration“

  14. Analytical knowledge-base: • Total: 105 • of which: • Academy of Science Czech Republic, Institute of Organic Chemistry & Biochemistry: 22 • Academy of Science Czech Republic, Institute of Mikrobiology: 21 • Academy of Science Czech Republic, Institute of Macromolecular Chemistry: 22 • Collaboration: 9 patents with universities, 2 with other institute of AS CR, 10 with private companies

  15. Synthetic knowledge-base: • Total: 91 • of which: • Czech Technical University: 37 • The Institute of Chemical Technology: 32 • VÚKV a.s. (successor to the Research Institute of Railway Rolling Stock): 16 • Collaboration: 4 with institute of AS CR, 16 with private companies (other than VUKV a.s.)

  16. Case study of a policy initiative • Bohemian Regional Innovation Strategy (BRIS) • Prepared on the initiative of Technology Centre of Academy Science in 2004 • Formal involvement of Prague authorities

  17. Key weaknesses of BRIS • Not sufficiently developed analytical part, there is no serious attempt to identify the sectors with the largest innovation potential • Analytical part is rather of traditional nature without focusing on softer issues related to connectivity dimension (interactions among the subjects including their types and ways of measurements, identification of potential leaders, why some existing bodies are in contrast to other regions not functioning properly, what are the routines that prevent standard support mechanism from functioning effectively etc.). • Missing clear priorities, the strategy is “to improve everything”. • Completely missing link to budget of City of Prague • Excessive focus on SMEs despite the fact that most relevant innovative actors are often research branches of large foreign firms.

  18. Key weaknesses of BRIS • Unjustified focus on building of a new innovation infrastructure (to establish Prague RDA, centres of excellence, science and technology park, incubators for new enterprises) instead of “forcing” the existing institutions by available and perhaps newly designed instruments to fulfil their role more effectively. • Missing clear responsibility (and time-schedule) for implementation of actions • Not sufficient guarantee that the implementation of BRIS will be closely monitored • Insufficient focus on raising awareness about BRIS both among relevant actors and among the public, and especially missing strong political backing and commitment from the elected regional representatives

  19. BRIS + • Nevertheless, there are also positive developments: • Envisaged incorporation of BRIS into Strategic Plan - this would eliminate several of the above mentioned weaknesses as issues of innovation would be put into the mainstream policy and as such regularly monitored. • Link to SPD - some of priorities of BRIS Action Plan were already implemented with the support provided via Prague SPDs. (e.g. Charles University established its Centre for transfer of technologies and knowledge). • Finally, there is continuing enthusiasm of key personnel of Technology Centre of Academy of Science which resulted in obtaining the financial support (within 6. Framework Programme of the EU) for follow up project “Evaluation of impacts of regional innovation strategy”. • This helps to keep the BRIS on the agenda of decision-makers as well as of other relevant players.

More Related