Advanced

The Innovation Union Scoreboard is flawed: The Case of Sweden–not the innovation leader of the EU–updated version

Edquist, Charles LU and Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, Jon Mikel LU (2015) In The Innovation Union Scoreboard is flawed: The Case of Sweden–not the innovation leader of the EU–updated version
Abstract
According to the Innovation Union Scoreboard published by the European
Commission, Sweden has been, and still is, an innovation leader within the EU and one of the most innovative countries in Europe. In this paper, the performance of the Swedish national innovation system is analyzed using exactly the same data as those employed by the Innovation Union Scoreboard for the years 2014 and 2015.
We argue that the Summary Innovation Index provided by the Innovation Union
Scoreboard is highly misleading. Instead of merely calculating this Summary Innovation Index, the individual indicators that constitute this composite innovation indicator need to be analyzed in much greater depth in order to reach a correct measure of the... (More)
According to the Innovation Union Scoreboard published by the European
Commission, Sweden has been, and still is, an innovation leader within the EU and one of the most innovative countries in Europe. In this paper, the performance of the Swedish national innovation system is analyzed using exactly the same data as those employed by the Innovation Union Scoreboard for the years 2014 and 2015.
We argue that the Summary Innovation Index provided by the Innovation Union
Scoreboard is highly misleading. Instead of merely calculating this Summary Innovation Index, the individual indicators that constitute this composite innovation indicator need to be analyzed in much greater depth in order to reach a correct measure of the performance of innovation systems. We argue that input and output indicators need to be considered as two separate types of indicators and each type should then be measured individually. Thereafter
the input and output indicators should be compared to one another, as is normally done in productivity and efficiency measurements.
To check whether our approach provides results similar to those of the Innovation Union Scoreboard (or not), we apply it and analyze the relative position of Sweden - appointed the innovation leader of the EU, by the EU. A theoretical background and reasons for selecting the indicators used are also given and a new position regarding Sweden’s innovation performance compared to the other EU countries is calculated.
Our conclusion is that Sweden cannot be seen as an innovation leader in the EU. This means in turn that the Innovation Union Scoreboard is flawed and may therefore mislead researchers, policy-makers, politicians as well as the general public – since it is widely reported in the media. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding
publication status
published
subject
keywords
Innovation system management, innovation policy, Sweden , performance practice, Indicators, input, output
in
The Innovation Union Scoreboard is flawed: The Case of Sweden–not the innovation leader of the EU–updated version
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
613e99cd-0680-443d-95bf-7490e4311e53
alternative location
http://Edquist, C. and Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J.M
date added to LUP
2016-10-12 18:31:33
date last changed
2016-10-19 15:41:42
@inproceedings{613e99cd-0680-443d-95bf-7490e4311e53,
  abstract     = {According to the Innovation Union Scoreboard published by the European<br/>Commission, Sweden has been, and still is, an innovation leader within the EU and one of the most innovative countries in Europe. In this paper, the performance of the Swedish national innovation system is analyzed using exactly the same data as those employed by the Innovation Union Scoreboard for the years 2014 and 2015.<br/>We argue that the Summary Innovation Index provided by the Innovation Union<br/>Scoreboard is highly misleading. Instead of merely calculating this Summary Innovation Index, the individual indicators that constitute this composite innovation indicator need to be analyzed in much greater depth in order to reach a correct measure of the performance of innovation systems. We argue that input and output indicators need to be considered as two separate types of indicators and each type should then be measured individually. Thereafter<br/>the input and output indicators should be compared to one another, as is normally done in productivity and efficiency measurements.<br/>To check whether our approach provides results similar to those of the Innovation Union Scoreboard (or not), we apply it and analyze the relative position of Sweden - appointed the innovation leader of the EU, by the EU. A theoretical background and reasons for selecting the indicators used are also given and a new position regarding Sweden’s innovation performance compared to the other EU countries is calculated.<br/>Our conclusion is that Sweden cannot be seen as an innovation leader in the EU. This means in turn that the Innovation Union Scoreboard is flawed and may therefore mislead researchers, policy-makers, politicians as well as the general public – since it is widely reported in the media. },
  author       = {Edquist, Charles and Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, Jon Mikel},
  booktitle    = {The Innovation Union Scoreboard is flawed: The Case of Sweden–not the innovation leader of the EU–updated version},
  keyword      = {Innovation system management,innovation policy,Sweden ,performance practice,Indicators,input,output},
  language     = {eng},
  month        = {08},
  title        = {The Innovation Union Scoreboard is flawed: The Case of Sweden–not the innovation leader of the EU–updated version},
  year         = {2015},
}