1 / 6

Benchmarking in the Knowledge-Based Economy: Insights from US and European Innovation Efforts

This report delves into the outcomes of a benchmarking conference held in Lisbon, one year after the Lisbon Summit. It examines the evolution of knowledge, innovation, and research within the EU and the US. The session addresses the implications of benchmarking policies amidst changing economic landscapes, the challenges of national versus systemic approaches, and the necessity for coordination to bridge the gap in research and innovation. It emphasizes the significance of learning from diversity, investment in education, and the role of institutional frameworks in enhancing competitiveness within knowledge-based economies.

urban
Télécharger la présentation

Benchmarking in the Knowledge-Based Economy: Insights from US and European Innovation Efforts

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. Benchmarking for the knowledge-based economy Luc Soete Learning by comparing, US and European experiences on Innovation and Competence building, Taguspark, Oeiras, Lisboa, 21-23June 2001

  2. One year after the Lisbon summit • Has the hype of benchmarking gone with the changes in macro-economic environment? • Lisbon was, however, much more than e-Europe: • Conviction that there were significant costs to non-Europe in many areas affecting knowledge, innovation, research • Clever way to circumvent the limits of the European Treaties through open method of coordination, i.e. benchmarking. • The whole EU apparatus set in motion to benchmark RTD, innovation, entrepreneurship, centres of excellence, venture capital • Short term pressure mounts though • Europe appears not to catch up… • US financial “attractiveness” still as inexplicable despite technology stock market collapse

  3. One year later • Benchmarking formally introduced in policy process, but: • National focus the relevant one? • Systemic interactions (NSI, RIS) questions the unbundling of policies (team rather than benchmark-policies) • Can we learn from comparing the diversity through this process? • Reaping the “scale” advantages in research, finance and innovation more important? • cost of non-Europe in research • Harmonising some of the diversity of institutions and experiences in some new areas of relevance to research (Bologna declaration, 6th FP, etc.)

  4. But how do we learn from diversity? • Innovation and technology policies are ultimately expressions of national policy priorities: they are multi-dimensional (Archibugi and Muchie) • NSI can be compared in diachronic vs synchronic ways (Petit): • relative capacity of each NSI to adjust to internationalisation (not EU-isation) • intrinsic properties of local adaptation to new technological system • Overall need for an institutional “coordinator” set-up? (Lundvall)

  5. Back to subsidiarity • At EU level focus on reduction of costs to non-Europe in science, publicly funded research, human capital formation and mobility including setting norms and models of reference (the easy part) • At regional level focus on innovation, entrepreneurship, education and other “local” conditions (the difficult part) • At national level depends on the structure of the country…

  6. Overall EU principles • A “new cognitive Keynesian deal” based on: • recognition of the importance of public and private investment in education, learning and knowledge more generally for growth and equality (OECD target figures), “activating” education and developing incentives for such investments • adherence to “open” features of the science and knowledge system enhancing transmission and knowledge diffusion aspects, reducing the blocking aspects of IPRs • give priority to importance of large social changelinked to KBE: the human part becomes increasingly important

More Related