TRANSITION REPORT 2014 Innovation in Transition
TRANSITION REPORT 2014 Innovation in Transition
Florent Silve is an Economist at the EBRD. Before joining the research team he worked as a project and energy sector economist in the Office of the Chief Economist. Florent graduated in Economics from the École Polytechnique and Sciences-Po Paris, and holds an MPhil from the University of Cambridge. Prior to joining the EBRD, Florent worked as an economics and finance consultant.
As the EBRD’s Transition Report 2013 showed, convergence between the income levels and living standards of the transition region and those of advanced countries has slowed markedly in recent years. In some cases, it has stopped altogether. Last year’s report concluded that much of the slow-down could be attributed to trends in total factor productivity – the efficiency with which capital, labour, land and human capital are combined.
At the start of the transition process, countries in the EBRD region generally had unusually low levels of total factor productivity, reflecting the inefficient allocation of resources under central planning. When production factors began to be redeployed more efficiently, total factor productivity initially grew rapidly.
However, by the time of the global financial crisis, productivity in the region had reached the levels seen in other emerging markets with similar income levels. This suggests that most of the easy options have now been exhausted. Further improvements in productivity will need to come from structural changes in these economies – in other words, changes to their economic structure and economic institutions, as well as policies supporting reforms and the development of human capital.
The challenge of boosting productivity in an economy can also be examined at the level of individual firms. On the one hand, an economy’s aggregate productivity and growth are shaped by macro-level factors – the availability of capital, labour, skills and natural resources – and the efficiency with which these factors are combined and used. On the other hand, though, aggregate productivity and growth also represent the sum of the productivity and growth rates of all firms operating in the economy in question.
This report focuses on the various challenges faced by firms across the transition region when they seek to improve their productivity. It makes use of a recent survey, the fifth Business Environment and Enterprise Performance Survey (BEEPS V) conducted by the EBRD and the World Bank, as well as the Middle East and North Africa Enterprise Surveys (MENA ES) conducted by the EBRD, the World Bank and the European Investment Bank (EIB). These unique surveys contain detailed information on firms’ characteristics, performance and perception of the business environment, and they cover almost 17,000 companies.
This was the first BEEPS survey to include a detailed module looking at firms’ innovation activities and management/organisational practices over the last three years. The data cover 30 countries in eastern Europe and Central Asia, as well as Jordan and Israel. Israel is a particularly interesting comparator when studying firm-level innovation, as it is a world-class innovation hub – second only to Silicon Valley in the United States in terms of the concentration of start-up companies.1
Importantly, the design of BEEPS V allowed independent verification of firms’ responses regarding their innovation activities on the basis of descriptions of their main new products and services. This is important, given that innovation may mean different things to different people (see Box 1.1 for more details).
This chapter starts by examining the link between aggregate productivity in the economy and the productivity of individual firms, highlighting the role of innovation. Using BEEPS data, it then looks at the distinction between innovation at the technological frontier (at the global level) and the adoption of existing technology. It also distinguishes between firms’ introduction of new products, the introduction of new production processes and innovation in the areas of marketing and organisation.
With these distinctions in mind, the chapter then examines the different strategies that firms across the transition region use to obtain the knowledge and know-how that underpins innovation. Lastly, the chapter uses cross-country data to assess the overall level of innovation of individual economies. Particular attention is paid to countries’ output in terms of patents, as well as the composition of their exports.
Changes in the aggregate productivity of an economy can be described as the sum of five distinct components:2
Studies show that the first effect – productivity growth within firms – accounts for an average of 60 to 80 per cent of overall productivity growth.3 Until the mid-2000s, however, aggregate productivity growth in transition countries was driven largely by the reallocation of resources from less productive sectors and firms to more productive ones (that is to say, between and cross effects), as well as significant entry and exit effects.4
Significant barriers to the entry and exit of firms remain. Dismantling these barriers through liberalisation reforms has the potential to give a much-needed boost to the overall productivity of the region’s economies (see Box 1.2 on service-sector liberalisation in Ukraine). The same is true of barriers to the expansion of more productive firms, such as the political connections that low-productivity firms exploit to defend their positions (see Box 1.3).
At the same time, now that most of the easy options have been exhausted (in the form of the correction of distortions stemming from the legacy of central planning), productivity gains from firms’ entry and exit will be reliant on simultaneous changes in countries’ economic structures and supporting economic institutions, and change within firms will have to make a larger contribution to productivity growth.
Firms’ managers can increase productivity in many ways. They can make better use of excess capacity (if they have any), they can cut costs (shedding labour where necessary), and they can improve the way they manage their businesses. However, the most common and the most important driver of change within firms (particularly in advanced industrialised countries) is the introduction of new products and new ways of conducting business – in other words, innovation.5 Innovation and its contribution to productivity growth and the transition process will be the focus of this Transition Report.
Many people would perhaps associate innovation with ground-breaking technology – innovations that advance the global technological frontier. However, while firms constantly work to improve their products and introduce new ones, few of those products are truly new at the global level. Most new products stem from the adoption of existing technologies that have been developed elsewhere, possibly with some customisation in order to better serve the needs of the local market. Although these innovations do not advance the global technological frontier, they can still significantly improve firms’ productivity, thereby contributing to increases in aggregate productivity.
The adoption of such technology is particularly important for emerging markets and developing economies, where firms have considerable room for improvement relative to the technological frontier. With supportive policies in place, firms in emerging markets will invest, learn in an open economic environment and improve their productivity, gradually moving closer to the technological frontier. The resulting change in the structure of the economy needs to be accompanied by changes in economic institutions and policies supporting the overall structural transformation. For instance, as the economy approaches the technological frontier, the entry and exit of firms will play an increasingly important role in boosting overall productivity and policies will need to evolve to nurture economic creativity.6 That being said, even in the majority of advanced economies, the adoption of technologies that have been developed elsewhere continues to play a key role as a driver of productivity growth.7
So, an innovation is something that is new, original or improved which creates value. In order for a change in a firm’s products or processes to be considered an innovation, it must, at the very least, be new to the firm itself (rather than the global economy as a whole).
This innovation could be a new product – a category that includes significant improvements to technical specifications, components and materials, incorporated software, user-friendliness and other functional characteristics of goods and services.8
Around a quarter of all firms interviewed as part of BEEPS reported that they had introduced a new product in the last three years. However, when those responses were then cross-checked against the description of product innovation, that percentage fell to 12 per cent (see Box 1.1 for details of the cleaning process).
As one might expect, the percentage of surveyed firms in the transition region that introduced a product which was new to international markets was relatively low at only 0.4 per cent – compared with around 5 per cent in Israel (see Chart 1.1). While around half of all product innovation reported in Israel can be classified as innovation at the technological frontier, in the transition region that ratio is only 5 per cent. However, while innovation on a global scale is encountered less frequently in the transition region, notable examples of such innovation can be found across emerging Europe, Central Asia and the southern and eastern Mediterranean (SEMED) region. For instance, the software behind products such as Skype and the file-sharing application Kazaa was developed by Estonians. Another example is the Akrapovič exhaust system, which was developed in Slovenia.
When it comes to the introduction of products that are new to the relevant firm, rather than being new to the international market, the picture changes. Indeed, such innovation is actually more common in the transition region than it is in Israel. This reflects the fact that firms in that region have greater scope for adopting – and sometimes improving – existing technologies and products.
Source: BEEPS V, MENA ES and authors’ calculations.
Note: Based on cleaned data. Cleaned data on new products are not available for the Slovak Republic, Tajikistan or Turkey at the time of writing. Data represent unweighted cross-country averages and indicate the percentage of surveyed firms that have introduced new products in the last three years. Figures for the transition region include data for the CEB, SEE, and EEC regions, as well as Russia and Central Asia.
Productivity-enhancing innovations are not limited to new products. They can also be new or significantly improved production methods – or, for service-sector companies, delivery methods. Examples of such process innovations include the automation of work that used to be done manually, the introduction of new software to manage inventories and the introduction of new quality-control measures.
A process innovation may, for instance, help to introduce a new product. For example, buying new machinery in order to start producing a new product involves both product and process innovation. Of the BEEPS respondents that have introduced new products, around a third have also introduced a new process in the last three years (see Chart 1.2). Indeed, product and process innovation may sometimes be hard to tell apart (see Table 1.1 for some real-life examples).
Alternatively, process innovations may help firms to deliver existing products in a more efficient, cost-effective manner – for instance, with the help of new equipment or new software. Around 9 per cent of all BEEPS respondents introduced a new process without engaging in product innovation. Around a quarter of all process innovations entailed changes to production techniques, machinery, equipment or software. Process innovation is most commonly encountered in manufacturing, where it is typically related to the upgrading of machinery and equipment.
Source: BEEPS V, MENA ES and authors’ calculations.
Note: Based on cleaned data. Data represent unweighted cross-country averages and indicate the percentage of surveyed firms that have introduced new products and/or processes in the last three years.
| Innovation | Not innovation |
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: BEEPS V and MENA ES.
Firms in high-tech and medium-high-tech manufacturing sectors (such as pharmaceuticals or electronics) – and particularly firms in knowledge-intensive service sectors (such as telecommunications or information technology) – are more likely to introduce new products than firms in low-tech sectors (such as wood processing or textiles; see Chart 1.3).9 Regional differences in the frequency of product innovation are also larger in these sectors. For instance, in knowledge-intensive service sectors the percentage of firms that have introduced new products in the last three years ranges from 0 per cent in Jordan to over 25 per cent in south-eastern Europe (SEE) and almost 60 per cent in Israel (see Case study 1.1 for an example of an innovative IT firm with its origins in Belarus). In contrast, differences between innovation rates are less pronounced for low-tech sectors, as firms in these industries generally innovate less (even in Israel).
In contrast to product innovation, process innovation is common in low-tech manufacturing sectors, as firms look for new, more efficient production methods (see Chart 1.4). For instance, in Central Asia around 28 per cent of firms operating in low-tech manufacturing sectors have recently introduced a new process. Differences between the process innovation rates of individual countries and regions are substantial across all manufacturing sectors and knowledge-intensive services (albeit process innovation is much less common across the board in less knowledge-intensive service sectors).
CASE STUDY 1.1EPAM, a global provider of software development services, has managed to successfully leverage and commercialise the availability of programming talent in a number of countries in central Europe. In just 20 years or so, it has gone from being a small start-up to a global IT services company that is listed on the New York Stock Exchange.
EPAM was founded in 1993 by two native Belarusians, Arkadiy Dobkin and Leo Lozner. The company was based in Princeton, New Jersey, with a development centre in Minsk. As the firm secured more clients on the global market, it gradually expanded, attracting investment from major private equity investors, including EBRD-supported private equity funds such as Russia Partners II and III. In 2012 it then launched an IPO on the New York Stock Exchange, the first time that a software company originating in the region had been floated on a major stock exchange.
EPAM now has development centres in Belarus, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Poland, Russia and Ukraine. The company has more than 10,000 engineers serving firms in a wide variety of industries in both developed and developing markets (with clients such as Google, Barclays, MTV, Expedia and Thomson Reuters). Its current areas of focus include cloud and mobile services and big data.
The company was also one of the first residents of the HTP Belarus high-tech park in Minsk, thereby contributing to the development of the local IT cluster.
Source: BEEPS V, MENA ES and authors’ calculations.
Note: Based on the International Standard Industrial Classification (ISIC), Rev. 3.1. High-tech and medium-high-tech manufacturing sectors include chemicals (24), machinery and equipment (29), electrical and optical equipment (30-33) and transport equipment (34-35, excluding 35.1). Low-tech manufacturing sectors include food products, beverages and tobacco (15-16), textiles (17-18), leather (19), wood (20), paper, publishing and printing (21-22) and other manufacturing (36-37). Knowledge-intensive services include water and air transport (61-62), telecommunications (64) and real estate, renting and business activities (70-74). Data represent unweighted cross-country averages and indicate the percentage of surveyed firms that have introduced new products in the last three years, on the basis of cleaned measures of innovation.
Source: BEEPS V, MENA ES and authors’ calculations.
Note: Based on ISIC Rev. 3.1. High-tech and medium-high-tech manufacturing sectors include chemicals (24), machinery and equipment (29), electrical and optical equipment (30-33) and transport equipment (34-35, excluding 35.1). Low-tech manufacturing sectors include food products, beverages and tobacco (15-16), textiles (17-18), leather (19), wood (20), paper, publishing and printing (21-22) and other manufacturing (36-37). Knowledge-intensive services include water and air transport (61-62), telecommunications (64) and real estate, renting and business activities (70-74). Data represent unweighted cross-country averages and indicate the percentage of surveyed firms that have introduced new processes in the last three years, on the basis of cleaned measures of innovation.
Innovation does not always involve new technologies. For instance, it may take the form of organisational innovation – such as new approaches to business practices, workplace organisation or external relations. As with process innovations, organisational innovations may seek to improve a firm’s performance by reducing administrative or transaction costs, gaining access to non-tradeable assets or reducing the cost of supplies. Unlike process innovations, organisational innovations primarily concern people and the organisation of work flows. Examples of organisational innovations include the introduction of a supply chain management system, the implementation of a database of best practices or the decentralisation of decision-making (which gives employees greater autonomy).
Marketing is another important area of innovation. Marketing innovations could, for instance, be aimed at better addressing customers’ needs, opening up new markets or repositioning a firm’s product on the market. Examples include the introduction of a new flavour for a food product in order to target a new group of customers, product placement in films or television programmes, the establishment of client loyalty cards or the introduction of variable pricing based on demand.
While product, process, organisational and marketing innovations cover a broad range of changes within a firm, not every change can be considered an innovation. For instance, customisation, routine upgrades (minor changes to a good or service that are expected and planned in advance), regular seasonal changes and new pricing methods aimed solely at offering different prices to different groups of customers are not deemed to be innovations. Ceasing to use a particular process to market a product is also not considered to be an innovation. And although a new product represents an innovation for the firm that manufactures it, it does not generally constitute an innovation for firms trading, transporting or storing that new product.
Making changes to organisational and marketing arrangements is likely to be cheaper – although not necessarily less risky – than introducing new products and processes. Given the legacy of central planning, where marketing was severely underdeveloped – and, indeed, largely unnecessary – it is not surprising that firms in transition countries are more likely to introduce new organisational or marketing arrangements than firms in Israel (see Chart 1.5). Indeed, around 28 per cent of all surveyed firms in the transition region have adopted new organisational practices or marketing techniques over the last three years, with marketing innovations being the more common of the two.
Source: BEEPS V, MENA ES and authors’ calculations.
Note: This chart is based on self-reported data, as firms were not asked to provide descriptions of their organisational and marketing innovations. Data represent unweighed cross-country averages and indicate the percentage of surveyed firms that have introduced organisational and marketing innovations in the last three years.
The introduction of new products and processes often requires specific inputs, such as spending on research and development (R&D) – in other words, creative work undertaken on a systematic basis in order to increase a firm’s stock of knowledge. While the concepts of R&D and innovation are sometimes used interchangeably, R&D primarily reflects inputs into the innovation process, while new products and services are innovation outputs. For example, R&D activities do not always lead to successful innovation, as a company may spend money on laboratory research investigating a new chemical compound for its paint, but not have any new paints on offer (at least, not for the time being). And conversely, the introduction of new products or processes may not always require R&D spending.
Firms in the transition region lag behind Israel in terms of the amounts spent on in-house R&D, despite the fact that some individual transition countries have a higher percentage of firms engaged in in-house R&D than Israel (see Chart 1.6). Slovenia comes closest, with an average of 0.7 per cent of annual turnover being spent on R&D, compared with Israel’s 1.3 per cent. While cross-country differences are small in low-tech sectors, where firms in all countries (including Israel) tend not to invest much in R&D, these differences are more pronounced in high-tech and medium-high-tech manufacturing sectors and knowledge-intensive service sectors (see Chart 1.7).
Source: BEEPS V, MENA ES and authors’ calculations.
Note: Darker colours correspond to higher expenditure on in-house R&D as a percentage of annual turnover across all firms. The pie charts for each country compare the number of firms that undertake in-house R&D (purple) with the number of firms that do not conduct such R&D (ochre).
Source: BEEPS V, MENA ES and authors’ calculations.
Note: Based on ISIC Rev 3.1. High-tech and medium-high-tech manufacturing sectors include pharmaceuticals (24), machinery and equipment (29), electrical and optical equipment (30-33) and transport equipment (34-35, excluding 35.1). Low-tech manufacturing sectors include food products, beverages and tobacco (15-16), textiles (17-18), leather (19), wood (20), paper, publishing and printing (21-22) and other manufacturing (36-37). Knowledge-intensive services include water and air transport (61-62), telecommunications (64) and real estate, renting and business activities (70-74). Data represent unweighted cross-country averages.
Some R&D can be contracted out to other companies and institutions, rather than being conducted in-house. In fact, BEEPS firms outsource more R&D projects than they conduct in-house. At the same time, in-house R&D projects have a higher average cost. The majority of firms conducting R&D employ a combination of in-house and outsourced work.
The introduction of new products can also be facilitated by acquiring external knowledge. This can be done through the purchase or licensing of patented technologies, non-patented inventions and know-how derived from other businesses or organisations. In short, firms can use a range of different approaches to obtain knowledge.
Chart 1.8 shows how countries compare in terms of whether they “make” knowledge (in-house R&D) or “buy” it (outsourced R&D, or the purchase or licensing of external knowledge). The horizontal axis shows the percentage of firms that only ever buy knowledge, while the vertical axis shows the percentage of firms that only follow a “make” strategy or employ a combination of “make” and “buy” strategies.
On the basis of firms’ responses to BEEPS V, four broad groups of countries emerge:
1. Low innovation: In this group of countries, located in the bottom left-hand corner of Chart 1.8, few companies spend money on buying or producing knowledge. This group includes countries such as Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Uzbekistan.
2. Buy: Firms in this group of countries predominantly buy technology, with the percentage of firms that engage in in-house R&D remaining relatively modest. Countries in this category include Bosnia and Herzegovina, FYR Macedonia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Poland, Serbia, Tajikistan, Turkey and Ukraine.
3. Make and buy: Firms in this group of countries, which is located above the sloping line, are more active in terms of in-house R&D relative to the acquisition of external knowledge. This group could be broken down further on the basis of the extent to which firms tend to engage exclusively in in-house R&D or both make and buy knowledge.
4. Make: Finally, Israel (located in the top left-hand corner) is the only country where few firms only follow a “buy” strategy and a relatively large proportion of firms spend money on in-house R&D.
These distinctions are important when designing policies to support innovation in individual countries (as discussed in Chapter 5 of this report).
What explains these cross-country differences in firms’ innovation strategies? As one might expect, their level of economic development appears to play an important role. Firms in lower-income countries are generally less likely to engage in either in-house R&D (see Chart 1.9) or the acquisition of external knowledge. However, if they do, they are more likely to simply spend on the acquisition of external knowledge (see Chart 1.10). This is not surprising, since firms in countries that are further removed from the technological frontier naturally focus more on the adoption of existing technologies. This may also be a reflection of insufficient human capital and other limitations in terms of their capacity to conduct their own R&D.
Such limitations are also reflected in the source of any external knowledge: in higher-income countries it comes predominantly from domestic firms, research institutes and universities, while in lower-income countries it is predominantly imported from foreign firms, research institutes and universities. Although firms in lower-income countries may find it harder to pursue R&D-based strategies, they can achieve productivity gains in a number of other ways, for instance by upgrading their management practices (see Chapter 2).
Source: BEEPS V, MENA ES and authors’ calculations.
Note: A “make” strategy refers to in-house R&D, whereas a “buy” strategy refers to outsourced R&D and the purchase or licensing of patents and know-how. The lighter colour denotes countries where the percentage of firms that only ever follow a “make” strategy is greater than the percentage of firms that only ever follow a “buy” strategy. The size of the bubble corresponds to the percentage of firms that have engaged in product innovation (on the basis of cleaned data).
Source: BEEPS V, MENA ES and authors’ calculations.
Note: Based on the World Bank’s income classification as at July 2014. Data represent unweighted
cross-country averages.
Source: BEEPS V, MENA ES and authors’ calculations.
Note: Based on the World Bank’s income classification as at July 2014. Data represent unweighted
cross-country averages.
Evidence from BEEPS V is in line with country-level data showing that R&D activity tends to be significantly weaker in transition economies than in innovative advanced economies, whether it is measured in terms of R&D spending or the number of people working on R&D (see Chart 1.11). However, these transition countries are not performing any worse than other emerging markets. For instance, Russia and China spend a similar proportion of their GDP on R&D – around 1 per cent. Interestingly, however, the number of R&D personnel in Russia is several times the figure seen in China as a percentage of total employment, partly reflecting a legacy of the Soviet innovation system (see the discussion of science cities in Box 5.4).
Country-level data also reveal that firms are responsible for the majority of R&D spending in advanced economies, accounting for an average of 61 per cent of such spending in OECD economies (see Chart 1.12). Firms in emerging Asia account for a similar percentage.
In the transition region, however, firms account for a much lower percentage of countries’ overall R&D spending: around 37 per cent on average. In contrast, governments in the transition region account for a larger percentage of R&D spending (more than a third, compared with 12 per cent in advanced economies).10 This reflects a legacy of the central planning system, where innovation was often centralised in specialist research institutes, which remain active to this day in some countries.11
As the development of new technologies relies on both fundamental and applied research, both governments and universities have an important role to play. For innovation to be successful, the efforts of governments, academia and industry must complement each other effectively (as discussed in Chapter 5 of this report).
Source: UNESCO.
Note: The fitted line is produced using a linear regression.
Source: UNESCO.
Note: Based on 2011 data for 73 countries worldwide. Figures represent unweighted cross-country averages. In the transition region data are not available for Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Egypt, Jordan, Kosovo, Morocco, FYR Macedonia, Tunisia, Turkmenistan or Uzbekistan.
BEEPS V provides a valuable snapshot of firm-level innovation in the transition region today. To get a deeper sense of how innovation in economies of the region has evolved over time, this chapter now turns to country-level measures of innovation outputs, which are similar to the country-level measures of innovation inputs that were discussed above.
A common country-level measure of innovation at the technological frontier is the number of patents that are held by firms or individuals from a given country. While this has the advantage of comparability (as data are available for a large number of countries), it is a narrow measure which captures a limited range of innovations. Not all innovations are patented, and the likelihood of firms or individuals applying for a patent in a given economy will depend on the legal system, local practices and the sectors in which that economy specialises.12 The extent to which patents are converted into commercialised innovations will also vary considerably from country to country.
With these caveats in mind, Chart 1.13 shows that there is a positive relationship between R&D expenditure and the number of patents held. However, while this relationship is strong in advanced markets, it is weaker in emerging markets, where levels of R&D spending and patenting are generally lower.13 A number of countries (including Belarus and Kazakhstan) have more patents than their R&D expenditure would predict, while other countries (including SEMED countries and Turkey) have relatively few patents.
Importantly, not all patents are of equal value: some may represent small modifications to existing products (incremental innovation), whereas others may cover breakthrough technologies such as lasers (radical innovation). One way to distinguish between patents of differing quality is to look at patent citations, as important patents tend to be cited in subsequent patent applications. Citation data suggest that patents in the transition region tend to be of lower quality than those found in more developed economies: only 6 per cent of patents in transition countries are cited at least once, compared with 44 per cent of patents in the United States (see Chart 1.14).
Furthermore, the percentage of patents that are held by firms is much lower in the transition region than it is in the United States. In the United States only 6 per cent of patents are held by universities or public organisations, compared with 11 per cent in the transition region (see Chart 1.15).14 In fact, in Russia, Poland and Ukraine over a third of all patents are held by universities or research institutes. This reflects the persistent legacy of centralised state-led research. If academic and public institutions have only weak links with industry, and universities and research institutes have limited incentives to commercialise their inventions, the patents they hold may raise the profile of their institutions but contribute little to innovation or productivity growth in the economy.
Source: UNESCO and WIPO.
Note: Data represent averages over the period 1996-2011.
Source: PATSTAT and authors’ calculations.
Note: This chart shows the percentage of patents that are cited in at least one other patent application.
It is based on data for the period 1999-2011.
Source: PATSTAT and authors’ calculations.
Note: Based on data for the period 1999-2011. Patents are classified on the basis of the methodology developed by the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. See European Commission (2011) for more details.
Measures of innovation output such as patents do not take full account of the adoption of existing technology. Ideally, one would like to have a broader measure of how innovative countries are. This measure would not only include information on innovation at the technological frontier (in other words, information derived from patents), but also cover the sophistication of each country’s output (for instance, by accounting for countries’ export mixes).15
In order to develop such a measure of country-level innovation, the first step is to ascertain the innovation content of various industries. We can then assess the export mixes of individual countries on the basis of the innovation content of these exporting industries.
This kind of comprehensive measure is attractive because it looks at what countries produce competitively, rather than simply looking at what they patent. It also provides valuable insight, as a more sophisticated export structure is associated with better long-term growth prospects, as discussed in the Transition Report 2008.16 (Furthermore, the analysis in Chapter 2 shows that exports of innovation-intensive industries grow faster in countries with a favourable business environment.)
In this first step, the intrinsic innovation intensity of various industries is measured using data on the number of patents granted per worker in these industries in the United States. While the figures are not a perfect reflection of the degree of innovation in the various industries (as incentives to submit patent applications may vary across industries), they do, on balance, provide a reasonable approximation of the role played by innovation in the various sectors and are based on observable data.
On average, firms in industries that patent more tend to introduce new products more frequently (as can be seen from the BEEPS data), and the lifespan of these products tends to be shorter, prompting firms to innovate continuously. The United States is used as a reference point because it is a highly diversified economy, the world’s largest consumer market (resulting in strong incentives to patent) and a world leader in R&D. This means that it is easier for an industry to fully realise its innovation potential in the United States.
Since the innovation intensity of all industries is measured using US data, these estimates are not affected by differences between the legal systems and business cultures of individual countries. Consequently, if one country has a lower patent output than another for a given industry, this will reflect a combination of lower incentives to patent and a less supportive innovation environment.
Unsurprisingly, computing equipment, communications equipment, chemicals and pharmaceuticals are among the most innovation-intensive industries, while textiles, food and beverages, and wood processing are among the least innovation-intensive (see Chart 1.16).
This measure is based on the innovation potential of the various industries, rather than the innovation realised in these industries in the various countries. Indeed, while emerging market firms operating in innovation-intensive industries will not necessarily be directly involved in innovation at the technological frontier, the nature of these industries suggests that such emerging market exporters will tend to roll out new products more often.
For instance, Box 3.1 in Chapter 3 shows that, by participating in global value chains in such industries, firms tend to develop skills and expertise and that, over time, this enables them to move up the value-added chain17 and produce original innovation. The manufacturing of telecommunications equipment in China is one example of how this transformation may occur. While foreign direct investment has played a key role in the development of this sector in China, local firm Huawei has gradually become a major international player and a world leader in this industry. Likewise, new or modernised industries tend to foster the development of local supply chains. For instance, top-tier suppliers of automotive parts in emerging markets can achieve quality that is close to international best practices.18
We can now calculate the innovation intensity of a country’s exports by producing a weighted average of the innovation intensity of its exported goods.19 If we look at the innovation intensity of world exports as a whole, we can see that major contributions are made not only by the sectors with the greatest innovation intensity, but also by key manufacturing sectors such as machinery and motor vehicles (see Chart 1.17).
Thus, a high degree of innovation intensity in a country’s exports reflects not only comparative advantages in high-tech sectors such as computing equipment, but also strong positions in sectors with moderate innovation intensity that account for a large percentage of international trade. The innovation intensity of an economy’s exports is expressed as a percentage of the average innovation intensity of global exports as a whole. Therefore, an innovation intensity score of more than 100 means that the innovation intensity of a country’s exports is above the global average.
Looking at exports, rather than the total output of a particular industry, has the advantage of picking out goods that are competitive in international markets and thus more likely to be closer to the technological frontier. However, an analysis of exports also has its limitations. In particular, comprehensive data on the structure of exports are available only for goods. Thus, service sectors (such as call centres or IT consulting) are not covered, and services are becoming increasingly innovation-intensive.
Source: USPTO.
Note: This chart is based on averages for the period 2004-08 and uses a logarithmic scale.
Figures correspond to the number of patents granted per 1,000 workers in the United States.
Source: USPTO, UN Comtrade, Feenstra et al. (2005) and authors’ calculations.
Note: Based on 2012 trade flow data. Contributions are calculated as the product of industries’ innovation intensities and their shares in world trade, before being normalised so that they total 100 per cent.
How has the innovation intensity of exports evolved over time? Globally, innovation activity has increasingly shifted from advanced economies to emerging markets. The last few decades have seen a major shift in the production of innovative goods, with a growing role for foreign direct investment and the rapid globalisation of production chains. In addition, emerging markets now account for an increasing share of both global R&D spending and R&D output.20
These broader trends are reflected in the innovation intensity of the various regions’ exports (see Chart 1.18). In line with these developments, the innovation intensity of the transition region’s exports has risen over time. Of the various emerging markets, Asia has seen the fastest growth in innovation intensity, while overall growth in the transition region has been similar to that observed in Latin America. Innovation intensity has generally remained low in the Middle East and North Africa.
These overall trends mask substantial heterogeneity at the level of individual countries, in terms of both the level of innovation intensity (see Chart 1.19) and its evolution over time (see Chart 1.20). In central Europe and the Baltic States (CEB) innovation intensity increased rapidly in the 2000s, reaching levels comparable to those seen in OECD countries. This structural change was, to a large extent, facilitated by foreign direct investment on the part of core EU countries and the integration of CEB producers into European value chains. The innovation intensity of exports has also increased moderately in the SEE and SEMED regions. Overall, though, changes outside the CEB region have been modest and levels have remained below 60 per cent of the average innovation intensity of world exports. Israel, the main comparator country in BEEPS V and MENA ES, has highly innovation-intensive exports.
Since the start of the transition process, a number of countries have succeeded in increasing the innovation intensity of their exports and raising income per capita, moving upwards and to the right in Chart 1.21. These include Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Romania, Slovak Republic and Egypt – although in the case of Egypt, both the innovation intensity of exports and income per capita remain relatively low, highlighting the fact that significant challenges still lie ahead. Notably, there have been no instances where the innovation intensity of exports has improved without commensurate growth in income per capita.
However, a number of other economies have remained “stuck”, with production concentrated in less innovation-intensive industries and modest levels of income per capita. This group of countries includes Moldova, Ukraine and – at a somewhat higher level of innovation intensity – Jordan and Morocco. A number of countries have seen rapid growth in per capita income in the absence of improvements in the innovation intensity of their exports. These include exporters of commodities (such as Azerbaijan and Russia) and a number of other countries (such as Belarus). These countries face the challenge of sustaining growth once commodity prices stop rising and/or higher incomes erode their competitive advantages in their traditional export markets.
Source: USPTO, UN Comtrade, Feenstra et al. (2005) and authors’ calculations.
Note: Data represent weighted averages, with the innovation intensity of exports being measured as a percentage of the average innovation intensity of world exports. The MENA region excludes SEMED countries.
Source: USPTO, UN Comtrade, Feenstra et al. (2005) and authors’ calculations.
Note: Based on data for 2012. The innovation intensity of exports is measured as a percentage of the average innovation intensity of world exports. Darker colours denote higher levels of innovation intensity. Israel is included as a comparator country.
Source: USPTO, UN Comtrade, Feenstra et al. (2005) and authors’ calculations.
Note: Data represent simple averages of the innovation intensity of individual countries’ exports (expressed as a percentage of the average innovation intensity of world exports).
Source: USPTO, UN Comtrade, Feenstra et al. (2005) and authors’ calculations.
Note: Arrows show changes over time for selected countries, indicating the difference between average values in the period 1993-94 and average values in the period 2010-11. GDP per capita is based on 2005 constant prices at purchasing power parity and is expressed as a percentage of average GDP per capita in the EU-15 countries (which is calculated as a simple average).
This measure of innovation intensity emphasises the adoption of existing technology, rather than innovation at the technological frontier. This is an important distinction, as in the most innovation-intensive industries the countries that account for the largest shares in the world’s patents may be different from those that account for the largest shares in international trade (see Chart 1.22). In other industries (such as vehicle manufacturing) shares in patents and exports are broadly aligned. Thus, certain countries may be good at adopting technologies without making a major contribution to their development. The innovation intensity of a country’s exports captures this important aspect.
Despite these differences, there is a positive relationship between the innovation intensity of exports and patents (see Chart 1.23). Indeed, many mature economies (including the United States, Israel, Japan and South Korea) tend to be among the strongest performers in terms of both patents and the innovation intensity of exports.
Meanwhile, a number of emerging markets appear to be better at adopting existing technologies, which is reflected in a high innovation intensity for exports but lower patent output. One notable example here is China. A similar pattern can be observed in the Czech Republic and a number of CEB economies (including Hungary and the Slovak Republic).
Conversely, Belarus, Russia, Kazakhstan and Ukraine have a relatively high incidence of patents, but appear to be less successful at commercialising the underlying inventions and adopting existing technologies. This may also be due to the fact that in some of these countries a large percentage of patents are held by universities and research institutes (see Chart 1.15), which have fewer incentives to commercialise their inventions.
Source: USPTO, UN Comtrade and authors’ calculations.
Note: Based on data for 2012. Figures denote the various countries’ shares in total patents and exports in the two sectors in question (expressed as percentages).
Source: USPTO, UN Comtrade and authors’ calculations.
Note: Based on data for 2012. Figures denote the various countries’ shares in total patents and exports in the two sectors in question (expressed as percentages).
Source: USPTO, UN Comtrade, Feenstra et al. (2005), WIPO, Penn World Tables and authors’ calculations.
Note: Based on averages for the period 1996-2011. The innovation intensity of a country’s exports is measured as a percentage of the average innovation intensity of world exports.
Aggregate productivity growth in the economy is largely a reflection of the productivity growth of individual firms, and that stems, in turn, from all the various forms of innovation at firm level – new products, new processes, new marketing techniques and new organisational methods. Most of these innovations do not advance the global technological frontier, simply representing the adoption of existing technologies in order to help firms to boost their productivity. Chapter 2 looks at the link between productivity and innovation in greater detail.
As the analysis in this chapter shows, innovation rates vary considerably, both across industries and across countries. Some countries – particularly in the CEB region – have succeeded in increasing the innovation intensity of their exports, while the innovation intensity of other countries’ exports has stagnated at low levels or declined. There are many factors that may account for these differences, and these are discussed in Chapter 3 of this report. Chapter 4 then examines the specific role played by access to finance.
Countries also differ in terms of the strategies that firms use in order to obtain the knowledge that underpins innovation. In some cases firms tend to focus on in-house R&D, while in other cases firms tend to purchase technology or know-how. Chapter 5 examines various policies that can be pursued in order to support innovation, taking these differences into account.
The Business Environment and Enterprise Performance Survey (BEEPS) is a joint initiative conducted by the EBRD and the World Bank. BEEPS is a firm-level survey based on face-to-face interviews with managers which examines the quality of the business environment. It was first undertaken in 1999-2000, when approximately 4,100 firms in 25 countries in eastern Europe and Central Asia (including Turkey) were surveyed in order to assess the environment for private enterprise and business development.
It has since been conducted every three to four years or so. The recent fifth round of the survey (BEEPS V) was completed in 2012 in Russia and 2014 in all other countries. BEEPS V involved more than 15,500 interviews with firms in 30 different countries.
The Middle East and North Africa Enterprise Surveys (MENA ES) are a joint initiative administered by the World Bank, the EBRD and the European Investment Bank (EIB). They were first conducted in selected MENA countries in 2013 and 2014. The surveys cover the countries of the southern and eastern Mediterranean (SEMED) – namely Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia – as well as Djibouti, Israel, Lebanon and Yemen. Of the SEMED countries, only data for Jordan are available at the time of writing.
Both surveys cover the majority of manufacturing sectors (excluding mining), as well as retail and other sectors – including most service sectors (such as wholesaling, hotels, restaurants, transport, storage, communications and IT) and construction. Only official – in other words, registered – companies with five employees or more are eligible to participate.
In some larger economies (such as Russia, Turkey and Ukraine) the survey is representative across additional subsectors for some of the sectors that make the largest contributions to employment and value added. Firms that are wholly owned by the state are not eligible to participate.21
The innovation sections of BEEPS V and MENA ES build on the established guidelines contained in the third edition of the Oslo Manual,22 covering product and process innovation, organisational and marketing innovation, R&D spending and the protection of innovation.
In the main questionnaire, respondents are asked – by means of simple yes/no questions – whether their firm has introduced any new or significantly improved products, processes, organisational arrangements or marketing methods in the last three years, and whether that firm has spent money on R&D during that period. In order to foster a common understanding of what innovation is, respondents are shown cards containing examples of innovative products, processes, organisational arrangements and marketing methods.23 Firms that have engaged in any of these innovation activities are asked more detailed questions in the innovation module. Crucially, firms are asked to provide a detailed description of their main product or process innovation.
These descriptions of new products and processes are then compared with the description of the firm’s main business, bearing in mind the formal definitions of product and process innovation. As a result of this process, innovations are sometimes reclassified. For instance, they may be changed from a product innovation to a marketing innovation – or even classified as non-innovations. In fact, in BEEPS V only around a third of all self-reported product innovations complied with the relevant definition. A total of 24 per cent were deemed not to represent innovation at all, while the rest were reclassified as other types of innovation. Chart 1.1.1 shows the percentage of self-reported product and process innovations that were reclassified as part of that cleaning process. Two types of misunderstanding were particularly common in this regard:
• The customisation of products was widely regarded as a product innovation. In many cases such customisation does not count as innovation. For instance, seasonal changes to clothing lines and the trading of new products by a wholesaler do not count (unless this concerns a new type of product altogether).
• Firms often failed to distinguish between product innovation
and marketing innovation. A change of design is deemed to be a marketing innovation, as long as the characteristics of the product are not altered. If a garment manufacturer introduces a waterproof outdoor jacket, that is a product innovation, while a new shape for a line of outdoor jackets would be a marketing innovation. Neither would be an innovation for a retail firm selling such jackets. For a retail firm, a marketing innovation might be the introduction of internet sales. In turn, for an e-commerce firm, a significant improvement in the capabilities of its website would be a product innovation.
Even in Israel – which arguably has the most highly developed innovation system of all the countries in the sample – around 60 per cent of all self-reported product and process innovations had to be reclassified.
The innovation module also asks firms to indicate whether the relevant product or process is new to the local, national or international market (thereby providing information on its degree of novelty). While it is difficult to distinguish between innovations that are new to a local market and innovations that are new to a national market, truly world-class innovations can be detected with the aid of internet research on the relevant product or process. Thus, internet checks and information regarding patents and trademarks allow us to see whether a product that is reported as being new to the international market can indeed be considered a global innovation.
All in all, while it is impossible to ensure a common understanding of innovation across all survey respondents, the BEEPS V methodology and the efforts made to cross-check and reinterpret individual responses go a long way towards achieving comparability of results across countries and firms.
Source: BEEPS V, MENA ES and authors’ calculations.
This box uses data on almost a quarter of a million Ukrainian firms across all sectors of the economy to provide a breakdown of their productivity growth over the period 2001-09.24 Total factor productivity (TFP) increased rapidly during that period, rising by a total of 60 per cent.
That period also saw exceptional firm-level dynamics in the form of a considerable reallocation of market shares, as well as massive numbers of firms entering and exiting markets, especially in the service sectors. These dynamics were mostly caused by the liberalisation of trade and services that resulted from Ukraine’s accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2008. While in the case of goods, trade liberalisation was relatively limited, given that import duties were already low prior to 2008, services were liberalised on a large scale, significantly boosting the productivity of individual firms.25
Accession to the WTO entailed the adoption of more than 20 new laws bringing Ukrainian legislation into line with the WTO’s requirements, including laws concerning TV and broadcasting, information agencies, banks and banking activities, insurance, telecommunications and business services.
For instance, the law on telecommunications that was adopted in November 2003 allowed all legal persons in Ukraine to operate, service or own telecommunications networks. As a result, competition increased significantly, and the country now has four large and four smaller providers of wireless networks, as well as several dozen internet providers.
Likewise, financial services were gradually liberalised, allowing foreign banks to open branches in Ukraine. In addition, the circumstances under which the National Bank of Ukraine may turn down a foreign bank’s application to operate in Ukraine were defined more clearly. Insurance services also underwent considerable liberalisation, and laws on auditing and the legal profession were amended to remove nationality requirements.
The combined impact of these liberalisation measures can be seen in the breakdown of TFP growth shown in Chart 1.2.1. New, more productive entrants to the market made the largest contribution to overall TFP growth (the “entry effect”, which contributed a total of 44 percentage points). This contribution was particularly large in high-tech manufacturing sectors, such as pharmaceuticals and communications equipment.
Firms that increased their productivity also increased their market shares, and contributed 38 percentage points to the overall growth in firms’ productivity. The other components of the breakdown made negative contributions: average productivity growth within individual firms (the “within effect”) decreased, reducing overall TFP growth by 3 percentage points; the market shares of highly productive firms (the “between effect”) contracted, reducing overall TFP growth by 13 percentage points; and firms that exited markets were more productive than the average firm, so this “exit effect” reduced overall TFP growth by 8 percentage points.
The productivity of individual firms did increase in the agriculture and manufacturing sectors, and this component contributed 16 percentage points to the overall TFP growth of manufacturing firms. This largely reflects the provision of better services to manufacturing firms as a result of the liberalisation of services.26 Indeed, some of the strongest overall productivity growth was observed in the service sectors (where TFP grew by a total of 75 per cent). This was largely a result of the entry of new service providers, which contributed 67 percentage points to overall productivity growth. Knowledge-intensive services recorded the strongest growth. Interestingly, the mining, utilities and construction sectors – none of which underwent liberalisation during that period – grew at a very slow pace.
The analysis in this box shows that policy measures which allow new entrants to challenge incumbents can have a swift and significant positive impact on firms’ overall productivity. Box 1.3, on the other hand, will look at how political connections and a lack of competition owing to the abuse of entry regulations can limit productivity growth by keeping firms “stuck” in a low-productivity equilibrium.
Source: Enterprise Performance Statement, Financial Results Statement and Balance Sheet Statement submitted annually to Derzhkomstat (the State Statistics Service of Ukraine), and authors’ calculations.
Note: Based on ISIC Rev. 3.1. High-tech manufacturing sectors include pharmaceuticals (24.4), office machinery and computers (30), radio, television and communications equipment (32), medical, precision and optical instruments (33) and aircraft and spacecraft (35.3). Knowledge-intensive services include water and air transport (61-62), telecommunications (64) and real estate, renting and business activities (70-74). Overall growth is shown in percentages, while contributions are shown in percentage points.
When markets are distorted, various drivers of aggregate productivity growth may cease to work properly, resulting in a stagnant economy. Such distortions often arise from the misuse of political connections.
Political connections can take various forms, ranging from direct ownership, management or control of a firm by political leaders or their relatives to close relationships between the state and the corporate sector, leading to favours being exchanged between politicians and firms (for instance, with firms receiving favourable treatment in return for funding political campaigns).
Politically connected firms may prevent new players from entering the market, which enables them to remain in business despite poor productivity. Shielded from the threat posed by new entrants, such firms will have fewer incentives to innovate and seek efficiency improvements.27 They may also stifle competition, thereby denying market share to more productive and faster-growing firms through the abuse of regulations or non-transparent contracts. Political connections can also help firms to obtain public bailouts in the event of financial difficulties, reduce their tax bills, benefit from favourable import licensing arrangements or, in some cases, gain preferential access to finance.28
Recent evidence shows that political connections have played a major role in limiting the growth of firms in the SEMED region. This may begin to explain why these economies have been struggling to absorb new labour market entrants, while many economies in south east Asia have managed to use their young and fast-growing populations to their advantage.
For instance, while in Egypt the informal economy has grown over the past 20 years, few firms have entered or exited the market and the average firm size is relatively small. In other words, small firms are failing to grow and challenge large incumbents.29 A recent study shows that trade protection, large energy subsidies and bias in favour of politically connected firms in the enforcement of rules have all played a major role in stifling firms’ growth.30
According to this study, in 2010 politically connected firms in Egypt accounted for 60 per cent of net profit in the economy, while their share of employment was only 11 per cent. Over 70 per cent of politically connected firms were protected by at least three non-tariff measures, compared with only 3 per cent of other firms. Meanwhile, more than a third of them operated in highly energy-intensive sectors, compared with a national average of just 8 per cent. Overall, around 20 per cent of the market value of these politically connected firms was attributable to their political connections. Strikingly, these differences between the profitability of politically connected and non-connected firms disappeared after the “Arab Spring” revolution of 2011.
In Tunisia the 220 firms that used to be owned by the Ben Ali family (which were confiscated in the aftermath of the country’s revolution) were responsible for 21 per cent of all net private-sector profits, despite accounting for only 3 per cent of private-sector output, according to a recent study.31 These politically connected firms outperformed their peers, particularly in regulated sectors. Political connections added an average of 6.3 percentage points to each firm’s market share, relative to the market share of a non-connected firm with similar characteristics. As in the case of Egypt, political connections were exploited in order to secure beneficial regulations, particularly when it came to preventing firms from entering the market.
All in all, cronyism significantly reduces entrepreneurs’ incentives to create new companies and existing firms’ incentives to innovate, with negative consequences for the growth rate of the private sector.
Politically connected firms are not the only factor that is distorting markets and impeding structural change in the SEMED region. Other important factors include a potential bias towards investment in capital-intensive – rather than labour-intensive – industries (which is being fuelled by large energy subsidies), cumbersome business regulations, weak and unpredictable enforcement of rules, restrictive trade regimes and pro-cyclical policies undermining macroeconomic stability.32
Most innovation occurs within firms and industries through improvements to existing products. However, countries also develop new industries on the basis of skills and other inputs used by existing industries. This enables countries to diversify and alter the range of products that they export. A new index characterising a country’s export mix – Whiteshield Partners’ capability and innovation potential index (CIPI) – is designed to capture potential in both of these areas.33
The starting point for the index is the economic complexity of a country’s exports. A country is considered to have a complex economy if it enjoys a revealed comparative advantage in many products that can only be produced and exported by a small number of other countries. A revealed comparative advantage means that the share of a particular good in a country’s total exports is larger than the share of that good in total world exports (implying that a country specialises in producing that good in the global market).34 In contrast, if a country enjoys a comparative advantage in few goods and many other countries have a comparative advantage in those goods, the economic complexity index will be relatively low.35 Countries with a more complex economic structure tend to innovate more, as more complex industries help to develop the skills, technologies and management expertise that support innovation.
The potential to achieve innovations that help countries to develop comparative advantages in new industries is captured by a related concept – the opportunity value of a country’s export structure.
This measure looks at the complexity of goods in which a country does not currently have a comparative advantage and sees how far removed they are from the goods in which it does, thereby seeing how difficult it would be to cover the distance between those exported goods and potential products.
The complexity of products is measured on the basis of the economic complexity of the countries that have a comparative advantage in those products. The “distance” between two products is calculated as the probability of a country exporting both products (in other words, the lower of (i) the probability of it exporting good A, if it exports good B, and (ii) the probability of it exporting good B, if it exports good A).36
If a country’s export structure has many complex industries in close proximity to its existing export industries, it will be easier to innovate and expand into new products, as those products will require similar skills and technologies and will themselves be conducive to innovation.
In contrast, if a country’s export structure has few nearby industries and these are less complex, innovation across industries will tend to be more challenging. For example, developing a comparative advantage in the production of buses will be easier for a country with a comparative advantage in the production of trucks than for a country that specialises in oil refining.
The CIPI (see Chart 1.4.1) takes the average of a country’s economic complexity and the opportunity value of its exports. On the basis of this index, countries in the transition region can be divided into four tiers, from those with the greatest potential to innovate across sectors to those with the lowest potential:
• Tier 1 comprises countries that are already members of the European Union.
• Tier 2 is made up of countries that are in the process of developing strong capabilities and have considerable potential for development. This group includes Russia, Tunisia, Turkey and Ukraine.
• Tier 3 includes other countries in the southern and eastern Mediterranean, as well as Albania, Cyprus and FYR Macedonia.
• Tier 4 mainly comprises countries in Central Asia and the Caucasus, which would seem to have limited potential to increase the complexity of their output in the short term.
Source: UN Comtrade and Whiteshield Partners.
Note: Darker colours correspond to higher values for the index. Based on 2013 data, with the exception of Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, FYR Macedonia, Kyrgyz Republic, Morocco, Russia, Slovak Republic, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan (for which 2011 data are used).
| Country | Number of observations |
Median number of permanent full-time employees |
Median age |
Majority foreign-owned (%) |
Direct exporter (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Albania | 360 | 8.0 | 10.0 | 6.7 | 10.8 |
| Armenia | 360 | 20.0 | 13.0 | 7.8 | 10.7 |
| Azerbaijan | 387 | 16.0 | 11.0 | 0.0 | 1.8 |
| Belarus | 360 | 16.0 | 13.0 | 9.0 | 21.2 |
| Bosnia and Herz. | 360 | 15.0 | 15.0 | 5.6 | 24.0 |
| Bulgaria | 292 | 12.0 | 16.0 | 6.5 | 19.9 |
| Croatia | 360 | 15.0 | 18.0 | 8.9 | 28.4 |
| Estonia | 272 | 11.0 | 17.0 | 11.2 | 29.7 |
| FYR Macedonia | 360 | 10.0 | 15.0 | 6.1 | 21.2 |
| Georgia | 360 | 12.0 | 7.5 | 4.7 | 6.1 |
| Hungary | 308 | 12.5 | 16.0 | 5.9 | 16.6 |
| Jordan | 568 | 20.0 | 13.0 | 9.0 | 35.9 |
| Kazakhstan | 600 | 19.0 | 11.0 | 3.2 | 2.9 |
| Kosovo | 198 | 15.0 | 12.0 | 0.0 | 17.3 |
| Kyrgyz Rep. | 270 | 22.5 | 14.0 | 13.0 | 10.0 |
| Latvia | 336 | 10.0 | 14.0 | 10.3 | 28.0 |
| Lithuania | 270 | 14.0 | 15.0 | 6.0 | 29.0 |
| Moldova | 360 | 15.0 | 13.0 | 4.5 | 11.5 |
| Mongolia | 358 | 17.0 | 12.0 | 4.7 | 3.9 |
| Montenegro | 150 | 10.0 | 15.0 | 4.0 | 11.7 |
| Poland | 541 | 16.0 | 19.0 | 6.4 | 21.8 |
| Romania | 539 | 14.0 | 17.0 | 12.1 | 21.0 |
| Russia | 4,205 | 17.0 | 8.0 | 2.0 | 6.1 |
| Serbia | 360 | 16.0 | 16.0 | 8.1 | 31.9 |
| Slovak Rep. | 276 | 17.0 | 17.0 | 12.8 | 27.6 |
| Slovenia | 270 | 14.5 | 20.0 | 13.8 | 53.5 |
| Tajikistan | 359 | 16.0 | 9.0 | 3.9 | 5.7 |
| Turkey | 1,360 | 25.0 | 16.0 | 2.1 | 38.2 |
| Ukraine | 1,000 | 18.0 | 13.0 | 2.7 | 11.9 |
| Uzbekistan | 388 | 24.0 | 11.0 | 8.3 | 6.4 |
| Israel | 483 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 4.8 | 23.0 |
| Czech Rep. | 253 | 17.0 | 18.0 | 13.9 | 40.9 |
Source: BEEPS V and MENA ES.
| Product innovation | Process innovation | |
|---|---|---|
|
Oslo Manual definition |
A product innovation is the introduction of a good or service that is new or significantly improved with respect to its characteristics or intended uses. This includes significant improvements in technical specifications, components and materials, incorporated software, user-friendliness or other functional characteristics. (p. 48) |
A process innovation is the implementation of a new or significantly improved production or delivery method. This includes significant changes in techniques, equipment and/or software. Production methods involve the techniques, equipment and software used to produce goods or services. Delivery methods concern the logistics of the firm and encompass equipment, software and techniques to source inputs, allocate supplies within the firm, or deliver final products. (p. 49) |
|
BEEPS V/ |
During the last three years, has this establishment introduced new or significantly improved products or services? Please exclude the simple resale of new goods purchased from others and changes of a solely aesthetic nature. |
During the last three years, has this establishment introduced any new or significantly improved methods for the production or supply of products or services? |
|
BEEPS V/ |
New products are any products with significantly new characteristics or uses: New or increased functions and applications, including user-friendliness New or significantly improved technical specifications or capabilities New or significantly improved components or materials (Do not include minor changes, regular seasonal changes, routine upgrades and purely aesthetic or design changes that do not affect functionality. Do not include the resale of a good purchased from other enterprises.) |
Changes in production techniques or processes of production: Introduction of new technology for production Introduction of automation of processes previously man-made Introduction of new process of finishing, packaging, or quality control Introduction of new or significantly improved production equipment not previously used Introduction of new software for production Changes in how inputs are delivered to the establishment, for example outsourcing transport that previously was done in-house Changes in how products are delivered to clients, for example outsourcing Introduction of scanning to register goods using bar codes Introduction of new software to manage inventories New or improved software or routines for purchasing, accounting or maintenance systems |
| Organisational innovation | Marketing innovation | |
|---|---|---|
|
Oslo Manual definition |
An organisational innovation is the implementation of a new organisational method in the firm’s business practices, workplace organisation or external relations. Organisational innovations can be intended to increase a firm’s performance by reducing administrative costs or transaction costs, improving workplace satisfaction (and thus labour productivity), gaining access to non-tradeable assets (such as non-codified external knowledge) or reducing costs of supplies. (p. 51) |
Marketing innovations are aimed at better addressing customer needs, opening up new markets, or newly positioning a firm’s product on the market, with the objective of increasing the firm’s sales. (p. 49) |
|
BEEPS V/ |
During the last three years, has this establishment introduced any new or significantly improved organisational or management practices or structures? |
During the last three years, has this establishment introduced any new or significantly improved marketing methods? |
|
BEEPS V/ |
Change in number of management levels Changes in communication systems Changes in production targeting and monitoring systems Changes to or introduction of incentives for performance, such as changes in salary or bonus determination to reward performance Changes in promotion practices Changes in hiring and firing practices Changes to how decisions and results are communicated across the establishment, such as new reporting systems Restructuring of departments or units Changes in external relations systems |
New design, branding or packaging, including use of trademarks or brand symbols New channels to promote or sell products or services, such as direct selling, internet sales or exclusive retailing New pricing systems to attract or retain customers, such as discounts, deferred payment or loyalty reward cards |
Source: Eurostat and OECD (2005), BEEPS V and MENA ES.
Note: The wording above is taken directly from the Oslo Manual and the BEEPS V and MENA ES surveys.
D. Acemoğlu, P. Aghion and F. Zilibotti (2006)
“Distance to Frontier, Selection, and Economic Growth,” Journal of the European Economic Association, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 37-74.
P. Aghion, U. Akcigit and P. Howitt (2013)
“What Do We Learn From Schumpeterian Growth Theory?” Harvard University, mimeo.
P. Aghion, R. Blundell, R. Griffith, P. Howitt and S. Prantl (2009)
“The effects of entry on incumbent innovation and productivity”, Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 91, No. 1, pp. 20-32.
B. Balassa (1965)
“Trade liberalisation and ‘revealed’ comparative advantage” The Manchester School, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 99-123.
R. Baldwin (2011)
“21st century regionalism: Filling the gap between 21st century trade and 20th century trade rules”, WTO Staff Working Paper ERSD-2011-08.
E. Bartelsman, J.C. Haltiwanger and S. Scarpetta (2009)
“Measuring and analysing cross-country differences in firm dynamics”, in T. Dunne, J.B. Jensen and M.J. Roberts (eds.), Producer dynamics: New evidence from micro data, University of Chicago Press, pp. 15-76.
M. Bloch, J. Kolodny and D. Maor (2012)
“Israel: an innovation gem, in Europe’s backyard”, Financial Times, 13 September 2012.
S. Claessens, E. Feijen and L. Laeven (2008)
“Political connections and preferential access to finance: The role of campaign contributions”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 88, No. 3, pp. 554-580.
W. Cohen, R. Nelson and J. Walsh (2000)
“Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why U.S. manufacturing firms patent (or not)”, NBER Working Paper No. 7552.
N. Diop, D. Marotta and J. de Melo (2012)
Natural resource abundance, growth, and diversification in the Middle East and North Africa: the effects of natural resources and the role of policies, World Bank, Washington, DC.
I. Diwan, P. Keefer and M. Schiffbauer (2013)
“The effect of cronyism on private sector growth in Egypt”, World Bank, mimeo.
J. Eaton and S. Kortum (1996)
“Trade in ideas: Patenting and productivity in the OECD”, Journal of International Economics, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 251-278.
EBRD (2008)
Transition Report 2008: Growth in Transition, London.
EBRD (2012)
Diversifying Russia: Harnessing Regional Diversity, London.
European Commission (2011)
“Patent statistics at Eurostat: Methods for regionalisation, sector allocation and name harmonisation”, Eurostat Methodologies and Working Papers, KS-RA-11-008.
Eurostat and OECD (2005)
Oslo Manual: Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data, third edition.
M. Faccio (2007)
“The characteristics of politically-connected firms”, Vanderbilt University, mimeo.
M. Faccio, R. Masulis and J. McConnell (2006)
“Political connections and corporate bailouts”, The Journal of Finance, Vol. 61, No. 6, pp. 2597-2635.
R. Feenstra, R. Lipsey, H. Deng, A. Ma and H. Mo (2005)
“World trade flows: 1962-2000”, NBER Working Paper No. 11040.
L. Foster, J.C. Haltiwanger and C.J. Krizan (2001)
“Aggregate productivity growth. Lessons from microeconomic evidence”, in C.R. Hulten, E.R. Dean and M.J. Harper (eds.), New developments in productivity analysis, University of Chicago Press, pp. 303-372.
P. Geroski (1989)
“Entry, innovation and productivity growth”, Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 71, No. 4, pp. 572-578.
P. Geroski, T. Kretschmer and C. Walters (2009)
“Corporate productivity growth: Champions, leaders and laggards”, Economic Inquiry, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 1-17.
R. Hausmann, C. Hidalgo, S. Bustos, M. Coscia, S. Chung, J. Jimenez, A. Simoes and M. Yıldırım (2011)
“The atlas of economic complexity: Mapping paths to prosperity”, Center for International Development, Harvard University.
R. Hausmann, J. Hwang and D. Rodrik (2007)
“What You Export Matters”, Journal of Economic Growth, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 1-25.
R. Hausmann and B. Klinger (2007)
“The structure of the product space and comparative advantage”, CID Working Paper No. 146, Harvard University.
B. Herrmann, M. Marmer, E. Dogrultan and D. Holtschke (2012)
“The startup ecosystem report 2012”, Telefónica Digital and Startup Genome.
The startup ecosystem report 2012
(6.3mb)
(last accessed on 21 August 2014).
S. Hussai and M. Schiffbauer (2013)
“Firm dynamics and job creation in Egypt”, World Bank, mimeo.
J. Hwang (2007)
“Patterns of specialization and economic growth”, PhD dissertation, Harvard University.
A. Isaksson (2010)
“Structural change and productivity growth: A review with implications for developing countries”, United Nations Industrial Development Organization, Research and Statistics Branch, Working Paper No. 08/2009.
A. Mobarak and D. Purbasari (2006)
“Corrupt protection for sale to firms: evidence from Indonesia”, University of Colorado, mimeo.
P. Moser (2013)
“Patents and innovation: Evidence from economic history”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 23-44.
G. Olley and A. Pakes (1996)
“The dynamics of productivity in the telecommunications equipment industry”, Econometrica, Vol. 64, No. 6, pp. 1263-1297.
B. Rijkers, C. Freund and A. Nucifora (2014)
“All in the family – state capture in Tunisia”, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 6810.
O. Shepotylo and V. Vakhitov (2012)
“Services liberalization and productivity of manufacturing firms: evidence from Ukraine”, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 5944.
J. Sutton (2005)
“The Globalization Process: Auto-component Supply Chains in China and India”, London School of Economics, mimeo.
T. Thursby and M. Thursby (2006)
“Where is the new science in corporate R&D?”, Science, Vol. 314, No. 5805, pp. 1547-1548.
World Bank (2008)
Unleashing prosperity: Productivity growth in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, Washington, DC.