Transcript I Foro de Ciencia, Tecnologia, Innovación y Competividad

S
T
S&T Balance
I Foro de Ciencia, Tecnologia,
Innovación y Competividad
Acuerdo nacional, CONCYTEC, PERÚCOMPITE, PROLÍDER,
CEPAL, OEA
Lima; April 9, 2008
The Finnish Case
Dr. Heikki Kotilainen
S&T Balance
Background for CEPAL’s study on Public-Private Alliance for Export
Development
S
I Foro de Ciencia,
Tecnologia, Innovación y
Competividad
T
S&T Balance
The Finnish Case
Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Introduction, Finland as a country
Innovation policy and respective organizations
Funding principles
Funding of innovation and national programs
Conclusions
S
T
I Foro de Ciencia,
Tecnologia, Innovación y
Competividad
S&T Balance
The Finnish Case
1. Introduction, Finland as a country
Finland in Figures *
Total Area: 338,000 sq km, this makes
Finland the seventh largest country in Europe
Neighbouring Countries: Sweden, Norway,
Russia, Estonia
Capital: Helsinki
Main Cities & Population: Helsinki
(555,000), Espoo (213,000), Tampere
(195,000), Vantaa (178,000), Turku (172,000) and Oulu (120,800). Approximately one
million people live in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area.
Population: approx. 5,3 million
Population Density: 17 inhabitants per square kilometre, 62 % of the population lives
in towns and cities.
Currency: Euro. Until 2002 markka, also known as the Finnish mark (FIM).
Languages: Finnish (93 %) and Swedish (6 %) are official languages. Sami (Lappish)
is the mother tongue of about 1,700 people.
Climate: The climate of Finland is marked by distinctive seasonal variations.
Winters are cold and summers relatively warm.
National Legislature: Finland has a unicameral parliament with 200 members.
Finland in the International Community:
Member of EU, UN, OECD and WTO, among others.
Major Exports: Electronic and electrical products, pulp and paper, machinery and
equipment, metal products, transport vehicles, timber and wood, chemicals
GDP: $176.4 billion (2006)
GDP per capita (PPP): $33,700 (2006)
GDP real growth rate: 5.5% (2006)
GDP composition by sector (2006)
Agriculture: 2.7%
Industry: 30.3%
Services: 67%
Unemployment rate: 7% (2006)
ECLAC Finnish Report 2007
THE POLICY DEVELOPMENTS IN FINLAND
WEALTH DRIVEN ?
INVESTMENT
DRIVEN
TECHNOLOGICAL
ADVANCEMENT
NATIONAL
COMPETITIVENESS
•INTERNATIONAL
COMPETITION
•TECHNOLOGY POLICY
•TECHNOLOGY
SUBSIDIES
MANUFACTURING DRIVEN
•RAW MATERIALS AS
COMPETITIVE FACTOR
•GROWING NATIONAL
SURVIVAL
DEMAND
POLICY
•INVESTMENT
SUBSIDIES
•LACK OF
CONSUMER GOODS
•INDEPENDENT
INDUSTRIES
•DOMESTIC
MARKET
1945
Industrialization &
Construction of
welfare state
•TECHNOLOGY&
SOCIETY
•POLICY FOR
SOCIAL SCIENCES
?
MARKET/INNOVATION DRIVEN
•INTERNATIONAL
COOPERATION
•SKILLS AS COMPETITIVE
FACTOR
•INTRODUCTION OF
NATIONAL INNOVATION
SYSTEM
•PRECONDITIONS FOR
TECHNOLOGICAL&SOCIETAL
ADVANCEMENT
•RISK/VENTURE
CAPITAL
2000
Export,
technology &
innovation
Finnish Trade
Trade in High-Tech products, 1991-2006*
The biggest surpluses in Finland’s foreign
trade in high technology were recorded in
trade with:
Export by Industry, 1996-2006*
High technology products accounted for
21.3 per cent of all Finnish exports in 2006
Russia (+ EUR 1.2 billion)
United Kingdom (+ EUR 600 million)
Saudi Arabia & United Arab Emirates
(both+ EUR 615 million)
Italy (+ 520 EUR million).
The balance was the most negative for
Finland in trade with China
(- EUR 1.5 billion).
* Source:Tekes, 2006
Competitiveness comparison
Ranking by the science and technology factor
WEF
Technology
UNDP
IMD
Technology
Science
Population
Population
over less than over less than
20 mill. 20 mill. 20 mill. 20 mil.
2003 2002
USA
1
1
Finland
2
3
Taiwan
3
2
Sweden
4
4
Japan
5
5
Switzerland 7
6
Denmark
8 11
Israel
9
7
Estonia
10 14
Canada
11
8
Norway
13 10
Germany
14 12
UK
16 15
Australia
19
9
2001
1
3
4
6
23
24
12
26
8
2
7
15
10
5
2000
1
2
24
9
7
6
13
8
14
29
5
17
23
2001
2
1
3
4
18
8
12
11
7
9
2003
1
6
9
2
4
8
3
2003
3
4
6
5
8
19
10
-
2003
1
5
2
6
3
7
9
2003
6
2
3
8
11
25
14
-
Sources: The World Competitiveness Yearbook (IMD), The Global Competitiveness Report (WEF) DM 36054
And Human Development report (UNDP)
11-2003 Copyright © Tekes
Technology index (WEF)
USA
Finland
Taiwan
Sweden
Japan
Korea
Switzerland
Denmark
Israel
Estonia
Canada
Singapore
Norway
Germany
Iceland
4.0
4,0
4,54.5
5,05.0
5,55.5
Source: The Global Competitiveness Report 2003,
3/4 based on quantitive material, 1/4 on query
6,06.0
6.5
6,5
DM 36054
04-2004 Copyright © Tekes
S
T
I Foro de Ciencia,
Tecnologia, Innovación y
Competividad
S&T Balance
The Finnish Case
2. Innovation policy and respective organizations
Future orientation
Motto:
”Prepare answers to questions, which
will be asked after 5 years”
Future orientation
The Innovation Policy of Finland
• Education, science, technology and know-how have been
a conscious focus of the industrial policy and the
foundation of the Finnish economy and society for a very
long time.
• The results of the policy can be seen today: the
transformation from a low-tech country to a knowledge
based society.
• Investments in innovations are important, but as important
are a consistent long term focus on national facilitating
conditions, as well as operational measures to build up a
well-committed, co-operative, well balanced, confidential
and dynamic innovation environment.
• Regional development is a special challenge, because the
birth of innovations is very centralized.
• Small countries, like Finland too, have a lot of challenges
in the future.
DM 88582
03-2004 Copyright © Tekes
Tasks in the Finnish Innovation System
PARLIAMENT
Future committee
General
policy
Government
MoE
Academy
of
Finland
© S&T Balance
Science & Technology
Policy Council
MEE
Sitra
Tekes
TE-centres
Foundation
of Inventions
S&T&I
policy
S&T&Innovation
policy formulation,
implementation,
funding
Public
Universities
Research Institutes
Centers of Excellence
Private
Enterprises
Research labs
R&D
performing
Semiprivate
Finvera
Sitra/VC
Industrial Investment/VC
Private
Venture Capital
Banks
Research funds
Business
funding
The Triple Helix
Confederations of
Industry
EU Commission
-state aid
-regulations
-FP
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Clusters
Banks
Venture Capital
Business angels
Semiprivate
SITRA
Finvera
Industrial Invest
Centres of Excellence
Technology/Science
Parks
Knowledge Centres
Sectorial Institutes
Tech Transfer offices
Institutes, labs
© S&T Balance
Science &
Technology
Policy Council
Universities
Research
institutes
Ministries
Agencies
Patent offices,
Government
IPR
Regional centres
TE-centres
R&D/GDP in Finland
R&D/GDP
4
SERVICE POLICY ?
3,5
3
INNOVATION POLICY
2,5
%
%
TECHNOLOGY POLICY
2
1,5
OUTPUT ADDITIONALITY
BEHAVIOR ADDITIONALITY
1
COGNITIVE CAPACITY
INPUT ADDITIONALITY
0,5
SCIENCE POLICY
0
1981
© S&T Balance
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2004
2005
Circulation of innovation policy
Setting policy
agenda
(Council, audit)
Public interest
Private interest
Analysing policy
(Ministries, agencies,
universities,
industry,Evaluation +
outside experts)
Research
National strategy
Strategic intelligence
Sector policies
Policy evaluation
Implementation
(Ministries, agencies,
universities, industry)
Implementation of strategies
Impact evaluation
Instrument set-up
Performance evaluation
Source: Tekes
© S&T Balance
Planning and implementing of technology
and innovation policy
Science and technology
policy council, STPC
Plans
Government
3 year outlines
Ministries
(Education, Employment & Economy, Finance etc.)
Annual objectives and agreements
Operations
Institutions
(Academy of Finland, Tekes, Universities
VTT, Sectoral Institutes)
Annual & semiannual
reports
and
feedback
© S&T Balance
Tech.plocy execution
BALANCE BETWEEN THE SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND
SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
MAINTAIN CLEAR NATIONAL FOCUS
STPC
NATIONAL
POLICY
ADAPTING TO
CUSTOMERS
(The Business
Community,
Society)
Funding Agency for
Basic Research
Funding Agency
The Academy
for Applied
Research and Tekes
Development
BOTTOM-UP
REQUESTS
© S&T
BBalance
MANAGE KEY DEMANDS
BUSINESS & SOCIAL CHALLENGES
PROACTIVE
VISION
(Science and University
Community, Society)
S
T
I Foro de Ciencia,
Tecnologia, Innovación y
Competividad
S&T Balance
The Finnish Case
3. Funding principles
Prerequisites for administration
involvement in R&D
•Business and research understanding
•Genuine interest in facilitating development
•Trust by industrial community
•Trust by research community
•Money and funding opportunities
© S&T Balance
The Selection of Areas for R&D
Funding
Administration
•social needs
•white spots on technology map
•emerging technologies
•globalisation challenges
•emerging legislation
Industry
•globalisation challenges
•technology needs
•clustering needs
•new business models
Research
•utilizing the strengths of research
•improving the weaknesses of research
•improving the industry cooperation
•facilitating the technology transfer
•improving the infrastructure of research
© S&T Balance
R&D Expenditures in Finland 2006
5789 M€; 3,45%/GDP
Tekes
504,3M€
(30,0%)
Private 4108 M€
Public 1681 M€
71,0%
29,0 %
Academy of
Finland
275,8 M€
(16,4%)
Competitive funding
© S&T Balance
Universities
446,4 M€
(26,6%)
Research
institutes
282,0 M€
(16,8%)
Others
172,7M€
(10,2%)
Institutional funding
Source: Statistics Finland
R&D investments of public and private sectors 19992006 in Finland
7000
Universities
Public sector
6000
Enterpr.
3,34%
3,30%
71,1%
3,16%
3,35%
70,9%
5000
3,43%
3,46%
3,48%
3,45%
4000
710%
70,8%
70,5%
2000
69,9%
3000
68,2%
1M €
R&D/GDP
1000
0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Source: Statistics Finland
S
T
I Foro de Ciencia,
Tecnologia, Innovación y
Competividad
S&T Balance
The Finnish Case
4. Funding of innovations and national programs
Multiplication of public money in the innovation system
Government
Parliament
Ministries
Public finance
Funding agency
Cumulative tax
Short term investment
Venture
capital
•grants
•loans
•equity funding
Businesses, employment
Long term investment
Universities
Research institutes
New technology, knowledge, skills
Innovation Trends
User-based innovations
Merger of manufacturing and service
Mulitidisciplinary innovations
Public and private sector innovations
Globalisation of innovations
Small firm innovations- large firm interventions
© S&T Balance
RESEARCH PARADIGMS
Old paradigm (LINEAR MODEL)
BASIC RESEARCH
APPLIED RESEARCH
DEVELOPMENT
New paradigm (CONCURRENT MODEL)
Basic research
DEMAND
Applied research
Development
TECHNOLOGICAL SOLUTIONS
© S&T Balance
PROBLEM
SOLVING
MARKET
SOCIETAL & BUSINESS
CHALLENGES
SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING
Product development projects Innovations
Research
The relation between the national technology
programme and innovation
INNOVATIONS ON MARKET
Company 5
Company 3
Company 4
Company 2
Company 1
Technology programme, joint research with multiple participants
THE GENERAL OBJECTIVES OF THE NATIONAL
TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMMES
•To promote the industrial competitiveness to keep up with the global
market change
•To give input to the industrial innovation process
•To create new knowledge to fulfil the needs of research,
Industry and society
•To create the critical mass and centres of excellence in important
technological areas
•To enhance the co-operation between industry and universities and
research institution
•To promote international co-operation
•To support research education and to educate internationally oriented
research managers
•To enhance the research and high-tech image of the country
PROCESS CHARACTER OF TECHNOLOGY
TRANSFER
RESEARCH
CURIOSITY
KNOWLEDGE
CREATION
SCIENTIFIC
EXCELLENCE
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
ADAPTATION OF
SCIENTIFIC
RESULTS
FOR
TECHNOLOGICAL
USE
”Requirement for
PUBLICATIONS technological success”
What is possible ?
Can we do it?
ADAPTATION
OF
TECHNOLOGICAL
KNOWLEDGE
FOR
INDUSTRIAL
USE
”Requirement for
market success”
How we do it?
INDUSTRY
CUSTOMER
NEEDS
MARKET&
MARKETABILITY
STRATEGY
PRODUCT
PORTFOLIO
R&D PORTFOLIO
COMPETENCE
MONEY&
FINANCING
IPR
REVENUES
How we market it?
Transfer process
Cooperation between companies
Share of cooperating companies of all innovating companies
Finland
Sweden
Denmark
Ireland
Great Britain
France
Netherlands
Belgium
EU
Austria
Germany
Spain
Portugal
Greece
Italy
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Source: Towards a European Research Area - Key Figures, Special Edition. EU 2001
70%
Technological success rate of enterprise research
projects concluded in 2002
concluded
1145 projects
611 mio. €
16 %
No information
240 projects, 100 mio. €
84 %
905 projects
511 mio. €
54 %
Success as
expected or
better
525 projects
278 mio. €
3%
19 %
Stopped or failed projects
37 projects, 17 mio. €
Success less than
satisfactory, 155 projects
99 mio. €
23 %
Otherwise as expected,
but late 188 projects
117 mio. €
Number and volume of projects
57305,
04-2003 Copyright © Tekes
S
T
I Foro de Ciencia,
Tecnologia, Innovación y
Competividad
S&T Balance
The Finnish Case
5. Conclusions
Acceptability of State Aid and Other
Incentives in the Society
COMPLIANCE
with national and
international legislation
EFFECTIVE
Implementation
Speed is crucial!
FLEXIBLE
adaptation to rapidly
changing environment
TRANSPARENCY
of criteria and processes
UNDERSTANDABLE
and
PREDICTABLE
operation
CONTINUOUS EVALUATION
of results and processes
WIDE ACCEPTANCE
in the society
© S&T Balance
FEEDBACK
Lessons learned from the Finnish Case
• Invest in people
• Consistency in policies
• Clear national strategy i.e. right choices
• Long term investments in R&D; Government as facilitator
and investor
• Co-operation within the ”triple helix”
• Strong national agencies with freedom to act and
implement the policies
• Balanced development of basic research and industrial
R&D
• Continuous evaluation of the organizations, operations
and programmes and quick feedback to decision makers
• Benchmark the best performers, don’t copy any of them
© S&T Balance
Thank you for your kind attention!
S&T Balance