sti indicators: looking back and foreword · e.g. with respect to emerging economies and post-war...
TRANSCRIPT
STI Indicators: looking back and
forewordLuc Soete
Roundtable Meeting for the preparation of STIGAP, Paris, July 4th, 2011
I. Outline
Outline of Blue Sky Ottawa presentation back in September 2006 (since then published): I will use the same slides…
Measurement and mismeasurement: “plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose…”Measuring S&T: the early yearsThe rise and fall of industrial R&DFrom R&D to the blue sky of innovationThe next ten years and the challenges ahead: “recherche sans frontières”
Reflections in 2011: STI after the crisis
1. Measurement and mismeasurement: “plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose…”
(all
slides from 2006)Some 10 years ago: ISTAT conference in Rome
Euro criteria for new member states Biases in PPP comparisons (Neary, Hill)
Similarities and differences between economic and S&T (mis-) measurement:
Continuous progress in measurement systems in hard sciences (nano-electronics and metrics)Opportunities in social sciences thanks to ICT and experimental economics mimicking controlled experiments environments under laboratory conditions
2. STI: the early years
Fourty years ago: Why choices were made in the Frascati Manual with respect to the separation between R&D and STS;Dominance of industrial R&D.
Importance of distinction between novelty and routine.R&D and STS distinction important in international comparisons:
In case of exploding S&T system:E.g. with respect to emerging economies and post-war catching up
R&D expenditure increasing more than R&D employment due to implicit re-classification tendency
In case of imploding S&T system:E.g. with respect to transition economiesR&D expenditures collapsing much more dramatically than R&D employment.
3. The rise and fall of R&D
Focus on R&D in Frascati Manual reflection of desire to measure the professionalisation of S&T:
part of the “research revolution”Difference with “arts and crafts” knowledge before
Early recognition that R&D was only part of STI, yet trend to overuse R&D statistics:
as sectoral level as industries became classified into R&D intensity, despite recognition of importance of inter-sectoral R&D flowsLink with national technological competitiveness and establishment of policy targets
Still quite an achievement of UNESCO, OECD and statistical offices:R&D 40 years later well recognized in economic and policy circles Closely linked with productivity highlighting link with STS
R&D and productivity on Google Trends
r&d productivity
r&d productivity
4. From R&D to the Blue Sky of Innovation
Particular features of innovation well recognized in early innovation research (projects such as SAPPHO) in sixties:
Early surveys at SPRU, Yale, Canada Breakthrough with Oslo Manual (1992) and CIS waves Popularity of innovation over R&D reflected in Google trends
More interestingly though recognition of new S&T system, new mode of innovation (Gibbons), distributed system of knowledge (David and Foray), etc. appears also as result of progress made in measurement innovationTwo features central:
More focus on routine use of technological base, hence less importance of professional R&D lab More trial and error, with a more crucial role of users
R&D and Innovation in Google Trends
Rank by
r&d innovation
A shift in knowledge paradigm
Traditional industrial R&D was based on: Clearly agreed-upon criteria of progress and an ability to evaluateCrucial role of “holding in place” (Nelson), replicate, imitateStrong cumulative knowledge accumulation process
Innovation knowledge paradigm based on:Flexibility with more trial and error research with “ex post” observed improvements, Difficulty in establishing replication because of continuously changing external environmentsA more “creative destruction” based accumulation process
Implications for STI: lessons from the past
Early Frascati distinction between R&D and STS particularly relevant today Dichotomy between novelty and routine, between professional R&D and production less relevant today; Implications for international STI measurement particularly with respect to emerging economies.
In addition, dichotomy between production as traditional locus of innovation and consumption less relevant:
From old insights into user-producer relationships (Lundvall)…to new visions about role of user in R&D process (von Hippel), collaborative innovation (David and Ghosh).
Broader economic impact of innovation again revealed through Google Trends
GDP and Innovation in Google Trends
gdp innovation
Lessons for the future?
Change in role of “understanding”: “Codified” parts easy, difficult though to appropriate efficiency improvements, leak quickly away…Organizational tacit part much more difficult, imitation never complete;Need for composite indicators: but how to weight the parts?
IT “productivity paradox” is not a paradoxRather rule: in most IT-intensive sectors (education, health, business) efficiency improvements remain complex “stories” to be told ex post; US success story not necessarily sustainable; newcomers might relatively quickly outperform;Similarly EU failure not sustainable! Rather the basis for new insights into how to develop its own IT-based knowledge society…
Monitoring innovation performance: Innovation Union Scoreboard
The 2010 Scoreboard uses 25 research and innovation-related indicators and covers the 27 EU Member States (as well as Croatia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Serbia, Turkey, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland). The indicators are grouped into three main categories:
"Enablers", i.e. the basic building blocks which allow innovation to take place (human resources, finance and support, open, excellent and attractive research systems)"Firm activities" which show how innovative Europe's firms are (firm investments, linkages & entrepreneurship, intellectual assets)"Outputs" which show how this translates into benefits for the economy as a whole (innovators, economic effects)
14
“Enablers”: 3 dimensions, 8 indicators
Human resourcesNew doctorate graduates (ISCED 6) per 1000 population aged 25-34Percentage population aged 30-34 having completed tertiary educationPercentage youth aged 20-24 having attained at least upper secondary level education
Open, excellent and attractive research systemsInternational scientific co-publications per million populationScientific publications among the top 10% most cited publications worldwide as % of total scientific publications of the countryNon-EU (Non-domestic) doctorate students as a % of all doctorate stunts
Finance and supportPublic R&D expenditures as % of GDPVenture capital (early stage, expansion and replacement) as % of GDP
15
“Firm activities”: 3 dimensions, 9 indicators
Firm investmentsBusiness R&D expenditures as % of GDPNon-R&D innovation expenditures as % of turnover
Linkages & entrepreneurshipSMEs innovating in-house as % of SMEsInnovative SMEs collaborating with others as % of SMEsPublic-private co-publications per million population
Intellectual assetsPCT patents applications per billion GDP (in PPS€)PCT patent applications in societal challenges (climate change mitigation; health) per billion GDP (in PPS€)Community trademarks per billion GDP (in PPS€)Community designs per billion GDP (in PPS€)
16
“Outputs”: 2 dimensions, 8 indicators
InnovatorsSMEs introducing product or process innovations as % of SMEsSMEs introducing marketing or organisational innovations as % of SMEsHigh-growth innovative firms
Economic effectsEmployment in knowledge-intensive activities (manufacturing and services) as % of total employmentMedium and high-tech product exports as % total product exportsKnowledge-intensive services exports as % total service exportsSales of new to market and new to firm innovations as % of turnoverLicense and patent revenues from abroad as % of GDP
17
Data sources
EUROSTAT:Balance of Payments statisticsCommunity Innovation Survey statisticsLabour Force Survey statisticsPatent statisticsR&D statistics
National data sources for some non-EU countries (e.g. Switzerland, Serbia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia)All indicators are normalised, i.e. recalculated to fall within a 0 to 1 rangeSII is the average of all normalised indicator values and measures average innovation performance
18
SI
TR
NO
UK
SE
FI
RO
PT
PL
ATNL
HU
LU
LT
CY
IT
FR
ESGR
SK
IE
EE
DEDK
CZ
BG
BE
MT
MK
CH
IS
LV
HR
RS
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
0.400
0.450
0.500
0.550
0.600
0.650
0.700
0.750
0.800
0.850
-1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0%
Average annual growth in innovation performance
Inno
vatio
n pe
rfor
man
ce
Convergence in innovation performance
19
Differences in performance patterns
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
CH
SE
FI
DE
UK
NL
FR
EU
IT
CZ
ES
HU
PL
RO
BG
HUMAN RESOURCES OPEN, EXCELLENT RESEARCH SYSTEMS FINANCE AND SUPPORTFIRM INVESTMENTS LINKAGES & ENTREPRENEURSHIP INTELLECTUAL ASSETSINNOVATORS ECONOMIC EFFECTS
5. The challenges ahead: “recherche sans frontières”
Are national statistics attempting to measure S&T with first and foremost global impacts not increasingly meaningless? Shouldn’t we focus on measuring global progress and welfare impacts of S,T and Innovation?
Many attempts in various countries but as a negative factor.Obvious in case of science and use of large scientific equipment and fundamental research In increasing number of applied research areas: agriculture, health, safety, environment, energy, transport and logistics, etc. Relevance of problems in other countries for domestic economies whether rich, emerging or developing.
Ultimately it will be the exceptions: defense, aerospace as example of key technological competitiveness areas which will be focus of S&T policy
Global access to knowledge as new source of private and public innovation
The global dimensions of “collaborative innovation” can go hand in hand with a huge concentration of research efforts in OECD countries with BRIC countries catching up.But such physical concentration will need increasingly to address global welfare problems and demands:
In this sense the most important long term enabling factor of OECD countries’ over-concentration of R&D will be in enhancing global A2K;Not just access to the required knowledge but also to the tools to replicate and improve upon knowledge;Access not as passive consumption but as an ability to participate: as a factor enlarging the resource base of potential innovators…
Conclusions back in 2006 in Ottawa
Is there still a future for national statistical offices apart from collecting and delivering statistics to international organisations?From information economics we know that if members of a group have different expectations or different objectives, there will be a tendency to collect too much information… worse collecting more information will help to put off decisions and keeping alternatives open. STI should not fall into this trap. Time to redesign role of national statistical offices certainly in Europe but possibly worldwide in becoming next to their national role, internationally specialized in different areas as lead agency.
II. Reflections in 2011: STI after the crisis
A new context of the first decade of 21st Century and financial crisis. Shifts in population/markets globallyKnowledge on the move
Shift from supply to demand means also shift form research within borders to “recherche sans frontières”
Crisis in Europe in STI:Implications for location of the funding of research and innovation – the rate of technical change;Emerging and declining regions. How to respond? Not just the rate but also the direction of technical change; Importance of regional impact: a spiky versus flat world? .
2025 Global Trends
Major Geopolitical Transformations:
Population growth in 2025 up to 8 billion worldwide:61% of world population in Asia, EU-27: 6,5%35% of the European population will be more than 60
Geopolitical economic power:30% of GDP produced by Asia, EU: 20%Asia will be the first world exporter: 35%, EU: 32%Asia on par with US & Europe in the field of R&D
Complementarities within Mediterranean area: ageing versus population dynamics
Largest countries by 2025 (>100 million)
China (1453)India (1431)EU-27 (517)USA (358)Indonesia (263)Pakistan (246)Brazil (214)Nigeria (210)Bangladesh (195)
Russia (132)Mexico (123)Japan (120)Ethiopia (119)Philippines (117)Egypt (105)Turkey (100)Not a single EU country, the EU as a union of small states
Globalisation and development: a return to normal?
What remains striking is how the two largest countries in the world: China and India, saw their share of world population and their share of world GDP fall over the period 1820 till 1973. In 1973, the imbalance between the world’s concentration of GDP and the world’s concentration of population was probably the highest the industrialized world had ever witnessed. This extreme geographical inequality in world GDP has to some extent formed the basis of the unilateral focus of both social scientists and policy makers on national, domestic competitiveness and in particular on technological competitiveness as the essential feature for a country’s future economic growth.As Ulrich Beck put it some years ago: “Critics of ‘methodological nationalism’ have attacked its explicit or implicit premise that the national state is the ‘container’ of social processes and that the national framework is still the one best suited to measure and analyse major social, economic and political changes. The social sciences are thus found guilty of ‘embedded statism’ …”.The cluster of ICT represents from a global perspective a historically unique process of technological, organisational and above all social transformation both in terms of speed and world-wide impact. One is confronted today in a certain way with a level playing field in global aspirations: in consumption, income and quality of life.
G‐5 share of population and GDPPercentage share of world population
Year China India Brazil South Africa Mexico Total1820 36.6 19.9 0.4 0.1 0.6 57.61870 28.1 17.0 0.8 0.2 0.7 46.81913 24.4 14.2 1.3 0.3 0.8 41.01950 21.7 14.8 2.1 0.5 1.1 40.21973 22.5 14.8 2.6 0.6 1.5 42.02001 20.7 16.5 2.9 0.7 1.7 42.52006 20.2 16.9 2.9 0.7 1.7 42.3
Percentage share of world income
Year China India Brazil South Africa Mexico Total1820 32.9 16.0 0.4 0.1 0.7 50.11870 17.1 12.1 0.6 0.2 0.6 30.61913 8.8 7.5 0.7 0.4 0.9 18.31950 4.5 4.2 1.7 0.6 1.3 12.31973 4.6 3.1 2.5 0.6 1.7 12.52001 12.3 5.4 2.7 0.5 1.9 22.82006 16.8 6.1 2.4 0.5 1.8 27.4
Source: Deepak Nayyar (2008) based on data from Maddison (2003); Maddison(forthcoming)
An emerging innovation development paradigm
Traditionally consumer product innovation has been driven by professional use demand directed towards the tip of the income pyramid: the long tail of product quality, professional use improvements.In a global setting, this has offered growth expansion opportunities to firms thanks to rising income inequality in developed and emerging economies.In the long term though this is likely to be an unsustainable process: high income market penetration offers too little innovation monopoly rents:
Need to strengthen the international implementation of IPR;But with major problems of transfer pricing, parallel imports will remain in crucial areas for welfare (health, education, nutrition).
Search on the part of the business community in the absence of Keynesian global redistribution policies for long tails elsewhere (remember Ford’s T-model):
At middle income levels, youngsters, elderly, etc. At low income, bottom of the pyramid (BoP) innovations (Prahalad), local grassroots innovation (Anil Gupta).
The new research challenges: insights from the South
Developing markets appear to raise some of the most motivating research/innovation challenges
Autonomy, unwired to high quality infrastructure (energy, water, roads, terrestrial communication);Low education hence necessity of simplicity in use;No maintenance/repair facilities, so intrinsic need for long term sustainability;Extreme income inequalities with strong needs in urban slums and poor rural villages, but barely any current purchasing power;High living risks, so low willingness to invest or borrow money in the long term.
All these features appear also and increasingly of particular value to consumers in developed countries:
Autonomy of high quality infrastructure as “freedom of movement”; Shift in the democratization of innovation: from the needs of sophisticated, bèta users to the needs of (digital) illiterates;Need for zero maintenance and ecological sustainable: cradle to cradleDownsizing the scalability of selling goods in large quantitiesRelevance of new financial products such as micro-credit and micro-insurance in poor urban areas
A second round of conclusions: Innovation for development
While developed countries’ applied research is becoming globally driven, the most challenging research questions are often taking place within development contexts. Innovation for development should ultimately give more emphasis to local knowledge communities: strategic alliances emerging between such local communities and private and public research laboratories in the development of BoP laboratories, not part of traditional high tech R&D centres. Innovation process will be reversed, starting with the design phase which will be confronted most directly with the attempt to find functional solutions to the Southern users framework conditions. There is a growing role in international research partnerships for NGOs, as initiators of research for development projects and organisations with a wealth of user knowledge, local community expertise and not-for-profit interest which gives a “voice” to needs at the bottom of the income pyramid where markets are invisible. Feedback from BoP users and from design developers upstream towards applied research is new example of reverse transfer of technology (from South to North), re-invigorating and motivating the research community in the developed world “in search of relevance.”
Twinning as new mode of international research partnerships
Focus in twinning is on higher education and on applied research. In higher education:
Imagine that all public development cooperation funds, apart from aid relieve, would from now on be allocated to higher education establishments so as to develop twinning partnerships in the South. Likely double effect:
Increase in the effectiveness of development cooperation;Increase in the effectiveness of higher education investments.
In applied research: In small countries, the forced emergence of research specialization needs to be exploited globally, that includes following the arguments put forward above also with respect to the South. Not just as markets but as sources of “collaborative innovation” in specialized Scandinavian research areas. Will lead to more focus in development cooperation
Energy Ladder (“micro”)“The energy ladder”
concerns the ability of individuals and societies to switch, as
GDP increases, from traditional biomass to increasingly efficient energy carriers. It shows changing needs for energy and also mapped on the chart in green the solutions people use to meet their needs
From: Jan Roes and Willem Manders
Energy Ladder issues in meeting needsBoth people at the bottom of the pyramid as well as the top of the pyramid have issues in meeting their needs
No money to pay for energy
Environmental problems (CO2) Energy Security
From: Jan Roes and Willem Manders
Energy Ladder: opportunities to leapfrogThis could provide opportunities for leapfrogging and systems innovations
BiofuelsGrowingBiomass
RenewableEnergy
CO2Credits (CDM)
Integration with other ladders:-Bio: food + energy
- Supply Chain integration
From: Jan Roes and Willem Manders
Other Ladders (draft examples) Important to look at the different ladders togetherHealth
ladder
Basic Infection diseases |(need hygiene)
Aids/TBC/Malari a (unawareness)
Need education & biofeedback
Wellness diseases
Need diagnoses & treatment
Nutrition ladder
Income ladder
Self-supporting
(not enough, little buffer)
Trading/buying
(not diverse enough)
Too much
(machine production, out of control, no feedback loop)
Self-supporting
(no money, live from environment)
Money rotates in community
(closed system, some specialisation)
External money/market
(enterpreneurs, starting industries)
Hurdles to move on Income Ladder: - difficulty of getting credit - transport - knowledge about and access to market - enterpreneurship
From: Jan Roes and Willem Manders
The global knowledge challenge
A. The financial crisis context 2011
Rapidly expanding fiscal austerity in most MS: Yet much more in some MS than in others; With different prioritisations (excluding or including knowledge investments).
A period of likely growth divergence between MS and regions? Crisis not just of the euro but also of the EU (van Rompuy)?How will/should EU Research and (Structural Change) Innovation policies respond?
Some MS and regions awash with money, enabling to “match” EU funding, others lacking desperately public funds not being able to use available Structural Funds;Major challenges to areas characterized by multi‐level governance such as RDI.
Start from the argument already made one year ago in an ERA expert report: absolute need for public funding commitment to knowledge investments (R&D, innovation, higher education) in Europe today...
On the “rate of technical change”
in Europe
Asking as in Barcelona 2002 for more private investment in R&D without offering a credible plan for integrating, or at least harmonizing, the final Single Market, was viewed in retrospect missing the point.
Companies invest private resources in R&D only if they consider the final market large enough to recover the investment;Having national markets fragmented by regulation, language, and entry processes, implies an increase in marginal costs of the overall “time‐to‐market” decision, leading to a reduction of the rate of return to research investment;The institutional separation between European research, leading to proof‐of‐concept or prototype stage, European innovation policy and European competition policy, has been a continuous source of uncertainty;
It made little sense for the Lisbon strategy to ask for more R&D from the private sector without offering any means to leverage such an effort. In exchange, there should have been a milestone strategy for the integration of European final product and services markets.
Proposal for a new 3% knowledge investment target
The intervention of nation states in preventing the collapse of their financial system might be described as “socialisation of debt”. In the coming years of fiscal austerity, it will be important to stress the need for a process of “socialisation of knowledge” bringing to the forefront the particular role of the public sector as local anchor of mobile knowledge flows and in providing support for knowledge investment in interaction with the private sector.Hence the proposal for a new 3% knowledge investment target: with clear policy advantages over the Barcelona 3% target.
Focuses on what governments are directly responsible for: whether in terms of funding or setting funding rules such as in the case of tuition fees with respect to higher education. Target thus offers credibility. All MS are being challenged to either find own public resources to increase such knowledge investments, alternatively to call upon private resources to invest in individual’s future human capital..
A new 3% national target
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
USCan
ada
Kore
aFin
land
Swed
enAu
strali
aDen
mark
Icelan
d
New Z
ealan
dOEC
DFr
ance
Austr
iaNeth
erlan
dsJa
pan
EU27
United
King
dom
Portu
gal
Czech
Rep
ublic
German
yBe
lgium
Polan
dSp
ainHun
gary
Irelan
dIta
ly
Slov
ak R
epub
lic
Government-f inanced R&D Tertiary education - publicly funded Tertiary education - privatly funded
B. From the rate to the direction of technical change
Focus has been over the last decades on the “rate” of technical change… Policy makers seem to have forgotten about the “direction” of technical change. Again some basis economics: remember the first, seminal NBER book on research and innovation published in 1962 on The Rate and Direction of inventive Activity.Societal Challenges represent major social problems that cannot be solved in a reasonable time and/or with acceptable social conditions, without a strong coordinated input requiring both technological and non‐technological innovation, and at times, advances in scientific understanding. The central issue is at the opposite end of the previous one. Can resources, not just research but also procurement and other investments, be shifted across different national/European stakeholders to more productive “societal use” to influence not only the rate but also the direction of technical change and innovation?Societal Challenges are not grand rather they raise grand policy challenges: how to achieve compatibility between top‐down initiatives and a more bottom‐up, market‐driven resource allocation logic that allows for multiple decentralized experiments. Some challenges appear more global in focus, others European, others national, even regional. Today focus in the debate at EU level is too much on technological approaches to societal challenges.
Back to basics: the old technological innovation view
Innovation has had traditionally a strong technological bias:Technological artefacts relatively easy to codify and hence to privately “appropriate “ (patents, copyrights, trademarks)Straightforward link with private finance (VC) and private rate of return (own funding);Public support limited to particular feautres of market failures (failure to appropriate fully knowledge spill‐overs leading to underinvestment, but opposite as likely).
Social innovation by contrast is characterized by high social rate of return: Intrinsic difficulty to appropriate privately;Social rate of return much higher than private rate of return;Hence central role of public funding and subsidies: without them no, rather than insufficient, knowledge invetsment and innovation.
New view on social innovation
Rapidly growing list of urgent societal needs in need of social innovationin Europe:
Unsustainability of public funding for societal needs: health and ageing; urbanisation and quality of life; isolation and insecurity; integration of immigrants; etc. Innovation in (service) networks and systemic benefits and failures: a process of “destructive creation” rather than “creative destruction“. Decline, sometimes even a collapse of quality of particular services.
Central question of how to fund social innovation: search for new funding sources :
Harnessing private finance interests in social innovation: CSR from ethical/philantropy to strategic, shared value; Align CSR policies with regional development plans.
Public‐private partnerships: social RSFF, social impact bonds, community investment bonds.
C. Cohesion and inclusiveness
Focus here will be on the importance of the territorial dimension. Central claim: There are more synergies at a regional/local level between smart, sustainable and inclusive growth than at nationallevel.
Smart growth in achieving a smart specialisation (see Foray) growth pattern based on local problem‐based and/or demand driven innovation and local user expertise. It is at local level that knowledge externalities can be reaped most easily.Similar argument for sustainable growth: exploiting demand‐led local applications: green buildings, cities, housing, mobility, planning authorities, etc. offer opportunities for EU. Inclusive growth in terms of local social cohesion, quality of life, inclusive cities, managing locally welfare schemes depend on local collaboration: the role of social innovation.
On regional disparity and social cohesion
At the geographical level, the crisis is likely to increase the gap between front runners and laggards in knowledge investments by exacerbating the different existing capacities of countries and regions to respond. The crisis challenges regional cohesion policies, and in particular the role of research and innovation in those policies (for memory €86 bn out of the €344 bn of structural funds is directed towards innovation compared to €50 bn for the whole of FP7 Currently only 26% has been allocated to operations). Yet, income inequality in Europe is already higher than in the US and other large countries in the world. It is at the regional‐local level that the success of inclusive growth strategies is likely to become the most visible:
E.g. through local, social innovation policies taking into account specific local conditions (composition of population, unemployment, mobility, etc.) Effectiveness of successful policies is strongly influenced by the density of social networks. Likely to be much higher in cities. Importance of local collaboration as a form of innovation (Diogo Vasconcelos)
Research quality assessment is heavily dependent on scale: the European scale is the logical scale for most publicly funded research activities, for reducing costs in selecting and evaluating research proposals and for enabling high quality research specialization; Europe’s regional scope represents the long tail of European opportunities for growth specialisation based on diversity. Towards a European common research policy, towards a European regional innovation policy.
Income spread across regions
Dutch knowledge regions
Beijing
Eastern
South EastNorth West
London
UtrechtNoord-HollandGroningen
Noord-Brabant
-7.0
-6.0
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0-4500 -3500 -2500 -1500 -500
Nordrhein-Westfalen
Bayern
BremenHamburg
Berlin
Baden-Wuertemberg
Delaware
California
Pennsylvania ConnecticutMichigan Massa-
chusetts
Maryland-7.0
-6.0
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.00 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000
R&D % GDP
Sud-OuestCentre-Est
Ile de FranceUtrecht
0
10
20
30
40
50
-4500 -3500 -2500 -1500 -500Publications per capita
Beijing
Shanghai
Friesland
Drenthe
Flevoland
Overijssel
Limburg
Gelderland
Noord-Brabant
Zeeland
Zuid-HollandGroningen
Noord-Holland
Utrecht
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000Per capita GDP
%-share Tertiary
education
China
France
Germany
UK
US
Netherlands
