Download - Bench Marking 2001
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
1/77
Towards a European Research Area
Key Figures 2001
Special edition
Indicators for benchmarking of national research policies
E u r o p e a n C o m m i s s i o n
Research
CONTENTS
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
2/77
Towards a European Research Area
Key Figures 2001
Special editionIndicators for benchmarking of national resea
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
3/77
Published by theEUROPEAN COMMISSION
Research Directorate General
B-1049 BRUSSELS
LEGAL NOTICE
Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Cis responsible for the use which might be made of the following inform
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Philippe Busquin, Member of the Commissionresponsible for research
Research DG - Unit for Competitiveness, Economic Analysis and Ind
Contact: Ms Fotini Chiou (Research DG)Address: rue de la Loi, 200.Wetstraat - 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel
Tel. (32-2) 296 90 26; fax (32-2) 296 28 40
A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available onIt can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu.in
Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communit
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
4/77
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
5/77
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
6/77
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
7/77
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
8/77
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
9/77
that exist. Privately collected data were only used when there wasno official source available for all Members States (e.g. venture
capital). It should be emphasised that without the data producedby the national and international statistical agencies this bench-marking exercise could not take place.
In order to ensure that the best possible data were used for thiswork, a two step approach was employed. First, the indicatorswere collected for each country from harmonised international
databases at Eurostat and the OECD. Then these indicators weresent to the Member States statistical services (via the High LevelGroup on Benchmarking) for validation and completion. This in-volved checking that the data were correct, the addition of any re-vised data not yet available in international databases, and the in-clusion where possible of estimates for the most recent years.
All contacts with Member States statistical services have beenmanaged by Eurostat, including the receipt and checking of data,
as well as various discussiontion Statistics Working Party
This is a first attempt at usinarea, and it is important to for the future. It is possible tout during the benchmarkinindicators could emerge.
The development of the five rection. This work will be uforce, involving representativfices, which will explore theindicators, which include mand mobility, all of which aEuropean Research Area.
introduction
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
10/77
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
11/77
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
12/77
theme 1: human resources in r&d and attractiveness of s&t professions
Figure 1.1.2. Total resgrowth (%), 1995
1.00
1.22
2.57
2.66
2.893.96
4.59
4.66
4.71
6.21
6.29
6.79
7.61
7.86
Figure 1.1.1. Total researchers (FTE) per 000 workforce,latest available year (1)
Austria
Portugal
Italy (3)
Spain
NetherlandsIreland
EU (2)
United Kingdom
Germany
Belgium
France
Denmark
US
Sweden
Japan (3)
Finland
3.27
3.33
3.77
5.05
5.12
5.28
5.54
6.07
6.11
6.14
6.46
8.44
9.26
8.08
10.62
4.86
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
13/77
Questions arising from the analysis of the indicator
It would be interesting to examine the following questions:
s How have Finland and Sweden achieved such a high proportionof researchers in their workforce?
s What are the factors and policies behind Irelands rapid increasein numbers of researchers (what is the role or focused policiesand what is the role of increasing total employment, as well asthe catching-up growth observed in Portugal, Spain and Greece?
s What government policy measures are used in Member States toattract young graduates to R&D professions?
s What are the differences between countries in terms of the im-portance of the public sector as an employer of researchers, andwhat policies are used to stimulate such employment?
s What are the differences between the public sector and industryin terms of the supply of and demand for researchers?
s What will be the effects of the ageing population on the futurestock of researchers?
s What are trends in numbers of researchers by sex? This questionis being tackled by the Member States in the Helsinki Group
f l l d
Some comments on int
The number of research scien
current use of human resouclude technicians and other the supply of highly qualifiedbe unemployed, or employed
To give a more accurate estsented here are in full-time eof researchers. This allowworking, etc.
Definitions and sources
Researchers are defined as t
and engineers in a country (F5.4.2.2) expressed in full-tim
Source: OECD MSTI, Membtep).
Total workforce is defined a
l
theme 1: human resources in r&d and attractiveness of s&t professions
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
14/77
Indicator: Number otechnology PhDs in
population in the co
What does this indicato
In the new knowledge based ity human resources is essent
knowledge. New PhD graduathe highly qualified output of will be of crucial importance
Analysis of national per
The European Union has sli
sand 25-34 year olds (0.55) tmore than Japan (0.24).
Sweden, Finland, Germany tions of new S&T PhDs (Fig
The catching up of Spain and
theme 1: human resources in r&d and attractiveness of s&t professions
Figure 1.1.3. Total researchers (FTE)
per 000 workforce and R&D intensity,1998 (1)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Total researchers (FTE) per 000 workforce
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Source: DG ResearchData: Eurostat, Member States, OECD, USA (NSF), Japan (Nistep)Notes: (1) P: 2000; D,E: 1999; B,EL,IRL,IT,FIN,S,US: 1997.
(2) L data are not included in the EU average. (3) see annex.
S
FINJP (3)
D
DKF
BUK
NL
EU (2)
IRL
EI (3)
PEL
US
R&Din
tensity(%)
A
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
15/77
theme 1: human resources in r&d and attractiveness of s&t professions
Figure 1.2.2. New science 19
-7.62
-7.19
-5.25
-4.51
-1.61
-0.15
0.37
0.63
0.74
2.8
-3.43
Figure 1.2.1. Total new Science and Technology PhDs per 000population aged 25 to 34 years, latest available year (1)
It l (3)
Japan
Belgium
US
Ireland
Austria
France
Finland
0 17
0.23
0.24
0.35
0.36
0.43
0.47
0.55
0.56
0.56
0.61
0.63
0.71
0.75
0.97
1.17
United Kingdom
Netherlands
Germany
EU (2)
Spain
Denmark
Sweden
Portugal
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
16/77
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
17/77
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
18/77
and - particularly - in Japan because of differences in the definitionof SMEs. Such problems should be solved at a later stage.
Theme 2 about public and private investment in R&D, there-fore, focuses on knowledge creation through various types ofR&D activities and their financing either in the public or busi-ness sector and by various actors. The following indicators havebeen selected:
s
Total research and development expenditure in relation to GDP,s Research and development expenditure financed by industry in
relation to industrial output,
s Share of the annual government budget allocation to research,
s
Share of SMEs in publicly funded R&D executed by the businesssector,
s Volume of venture capital investment in early stages (seed andstart-up) in relation to GDP.
Indicator: Total reseexpenditure in relat
What does this indicato
The share of R&D expenditutive efforts to create new knothe existing knowledge bases
sector. R&D expenditure reeconomic growth in a knowstrong dynamics of R&D ingrowth dynamics of a count
Analysis of national per
R&D intensity was higher iAverage annual growth (19R&D spending (Figure 2.1higher for these two countrimplies that the gap in the R&
theme 2: public and private investment in r&d
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
19/77
theme 2: public and private investment in r&d
Figure 2.1.2. R&D expenditu1995 to lat
1.23
2.56
2.81
3.03
3.54
4.13
4.65
5.09
5.31
5.55
5.72
6.07
6.32
Figure 2.1.1. R&D intensity (%), latest available year (1)
Portugal
Spain
Italy (3)
Ireland
Austria
United Kingdom
EU (2)
Netherlands
Belgium
Denmark
France
Germany
US
Japan (3)
FinlandSweden
0.78
0.90
1.04
1.39
1.78
1.87
1.92
1.94
1.98
3.70
3.30
2.91
2.62
2.46
2.172.07
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
20/77
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
21/77
Some comments on interpreting the indicator
This is an aggregate indicator which conceals several structural
and qualitative aspects that should be kept in mind when compar-ing across countries. The most important aspects are:
s The level of R&D expenditure will depend partly on the struc-ture of the industrial sectors in a country. If a country is spe-cialised in industries that typically have a high R&D intensitythe value of the indicator will be high.
s The characteristics of the enterprise population will also affectthis indicator because the propensity to invest in R&D differsacross types of firms (such as size or nationality).
s Total R&D indicators include both public and business sectorR&D expenditure. The breakdown of expenditure between
these sectors varies considerably across countries.s This important indicator measures only the investment in R&D,
while performance is also a function of the efficiency of the in-novation system.
s R&D intensity is sensitive to the business cycle. Therefore, theperiod of analysis will affect the value of the indicator.
theme 2: public and private investment in r&d
Figure 2.1.3. R&D intenof R
-2
-1
0
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 1
R&D
Source: DG ResearchData: Eurostat, Member StateNotes: (1) D,A,P,FIN: 2000; N
(2) D,A,P,FIN 1995-200(3) L data are not inclu
Averagean
nualgrowthof
R&Dintensity
,1995-99(%)(2)
EL
IRLI (4)E
P
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
22/77
Indicator: Research and developmentexpenditure financed by industry in relation
to industrial output
What does this indicator tell us?
R&D expenditure financed by industry describes the innovative ef-forts of industry in creating new knowledge and in exploiting exist-ing knowledge bases. These financial resources are directed towardsindustry needs, and tend to be focused on applied and developmentresearch with more direct economic objectives than public research.In addition to public funding of R&D, R&D financed by industryprovides the basis for future industrial competitiveness.
Analysis of national performances
The relative effort made by industry to finance R&D is lower inthe EU than in the USA and Japan (1.4% in EU versus 2.1% inUSA and 2.5% in Japan). Also, the growth rate of R&D financedby industry is considerably higher in the USA than that of EUaverage.
theme 2: public and private investment in r&d
Figure 2.2.1. Industry finanlatest a
2.4
2.08
2.09
2.04
1.68
1.57
1.42
1.27
1.22
1.16
0.93
0.60
0.58
0.20
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
23/77
The relative effort made byabove the EU average in Bgrowth of this R&D is also hother Member states reach vby industry that are below thAustria and UK) also have while Greece has experiencetugal, Ireland and Spain - whbusiness financed R&D - arabove that of the EU average
Questions arising from
A high level and strong dynadicates strong innovative eff
edge and the utilisation of market forces alone do not nanced by industry for the ecutilises diverse instruments the industry. Consequently, talso the success of the techn
theme 2: public and private investment in r&d
Figure 2.2.2. Industry financed R&D - average annual realgrowth, 1995 to latest available year (1)
United Kingdom
Austria
France
Italy (3)
JapanNetherlands
Germany
EU (2)
Sweden
Belgium
US
Spain
Ireland
Portugal
Denmark
Finland
1.99
2.96
3.48
3.84
4.60
4.73
4.78
4.86
5.72
6.37
8.21
8.52
11.29
12.18
12.48
17.51
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
24/77
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
25/77
measures. The government plays an important role in allocatingresources to the production of scientific knowledge and to a less-er extent - in stimulating knowledge creation in the business sector.Government research budget is, therefore, vitally important in sup-porting the transition towards the knowledge-based economy.
Analysis of national performances
In international context, the share of government R&D budget in the
EU is considerably lower than that of the USA and also that of Japan.Similarly, the EUs government R&D budgets grows at a much low-er rate than in Japan and also even if less outstanding in the USA.
The importance that is given to R&D support in government bud-gets varies considerably between the member states. In France andthe Netherlands the role of the government R&D budget is very
high (5.0% and 3.3% respectively) compared to the EU average(2.0%) and to the other European countries. However, in Francethe government R&D budget at an initially high level - registeredan average annual decline during the period 1995-1999. Theshares of government budgets reach in Finland, Germany, UK andSpain values that are around the EU average, but, of these four
theme 2: public and private investment in r&d
Figure 2.3.1. Share of govlatest a
0.77
1.19
1.36
1.36
1.37
1.40
1.47
1.83
1.87
1.90
1.99
2.11
3
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
26/77
theme 2: public and private investment in r&d
Figure 2.3.3. Government Rlatest a
Figure 2.3.2. Government R&D budget - average annual realgrowth (%), 1995 to latest available year (1)
France
Germany
Austria
United Kingdom
Italy (3)EU (2)
US
Denmark
Netherlands
Ireland
Greece
Finland
Belgium
Japan
Portugal
Spain
-1.52
-0.52
-0.33
-0.27
-0.08
0.61
1.48
1.83
2.68
2.69
2.87
4.99
5.51
6.26
10.85
12.72
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
27/77
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
28/77
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
29/77
theme 2: public and private investment in r&d
Figure 2.4.1. Share of SMEs in publicly funded R&D executedby the business sector (%), latest available year (1)
Italy (na)
Spain
Belgium (na)
France
US
United Kingdom
Germany
Japan
Netherlands
Austria
Finland
Denmark
Portugal
Greece
Ireland
8.33
10.01
10.20
11.35
15.45
35.57
38.61
48.41
51.47
59.88
72.84
83.33
52.73
Figure 2.4.2. Publicly fusector - average annua
available year (1) (onl
-9.51
-8.75
12.15
2.08
10.94
14.03
17.79
19.71
29.
21.28
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
30/77
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
31/77
theme 2: public and private investment in r&d
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
32/77
theme 2: public and private investment in r&d
Figure 2.5.2. Seed and staverage annual real growth
27.60
28.95
44.87
46.88
48.27
48.76
51.88
52.85
59.66
69.99
70.80
82.94
Figure 2.5.1. Seed and start-up venture capital - investmentper 000 GDP, latest available year (1)
Portugal
Italy (3)
Spain
Greece
United KingdomDenmark
EU (2)
France
Ireland
Germany
Finland
Belgium
Netherlands
Japan
Sweden
US
0.08
0.13
0.16
0.17
0.190.24
0.38
0.39
0.46
0.50
0.56
0.90
0.91
0.99
1.08
1.16
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
33/77
theme 2: public and private investment in r&d
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
34/77
Definitions and sources
Venture capital in early stages of a company - i.e. seed and start-up
stages provides financing mainly for the initial business plan, re-search activities, the product development and first marketing. It ispart of total venture capital (= equity investments made for thelaunch, early development or expansion of business). Total venturecapital itself is a part of total private equity capital to enterprisesnot quoted on a stock market. The definitions of seed and start-up
venture capital in the US also include first-stage financing. TheJapanese data for early stage financing are based on two assump-tions: firstly, early stages correspond to the period before estab-
lishment or less than 5 yearondly, the ratio of early stagthe same as that in total new
Sources: European Venture States and National VenturSource for Japan: The Ventu
Gross domestic product (GDtional accounts definition (E
in euros and current prices.Source: Eurostat
theme 2: public and private investment in r&d
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
35/77
theme 3: scientific and technological productivity
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
36/77
s Rate of usage of broadband electronic networks for research byR&D laboratories which measures the rate of connectivity anduse of electronic research networks. The underlying assumption
is the larger and better connected electronic research networksare, the more likely is the increase in quantity and quality of sci-entific productivity and the speedy diffusion of scientific andtechnological output.
These two indicators are completely new and are not yet available
from internationally comparable sources (they are therefore notpresented here). Work will need to be launched to develop them inthe future with the help of the statistical offices.
Indicator: Number of patents at the
European and US patent offices per capita
What do these indicators tell us?
An application for a patent indicates that there has been a produc-tion of new knowledge linked to an invention, and more impor-tantly that this knowledge may have potential economic returns.
3
Figure 3.1.1: European
62
65
109
120
126
134
134
135
144
151
185
191
61
54
95
118
120
126
132
125
130130
155
170
theme 3: scientific and technological productivity
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
37/77
resent key markets for future products which exploit the inven-tions being patented. Secondly, the patenting performance of theEU and the USA varies significantly between the two systems ow-
ing to a home advantage effect: i.e. the US is dominant in the USpatent system because it is their home market, while the Europeancountries are dominant in the European system.
Analysis of national performances
One observes a broadly similar ranking of the European countriesin terms of patenting per capita for both European and US patents.(Figures 3.1.1 and 3.1.3).
While in the European patent system the EU and the US havebroadly the same level of patents per capita (Figure 3.1.1), in theUS patent system the US has a much higher patent intensity than
Europe (Figure 3.1.3)The highest levels of patenting per capita are exhibited by Sweden,Finland and Germany. Some of the Member States have relativelylow levels of patenting per capita (and often extremely low num-bers of patents in absolute terms), but exhibit a clear upwardgrowth trend. (Figures 3.1.2 and 3.1.4).
3
Figure 3.1.2 : Average annu1995 to lat
9.98
10.17
11.08
11.16
11.72
11.72
12.38
12.93
14.79
15.08
16.51
19.86
21.72
23.52
theme 3: scientific and technological productivity
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
38/77
Questions arising from
Some questions of interest th
s To what extent does indulow levels of patenting perother factors may be respo
s In which technology fieldmore specialised?
s
What role do the patentingin these dynamics?
s To what extent is the costtive protection of inventio
s What measures have beencourage SMEs to protect thhow effective have these b
s What measures have beengovernment funded S&T p
Some comments on int
Figure 3.1.3: US patents per million population
Italy (1)
Ireland
France
United Kingdom
EU
Austria
Belgium
Netherlands
DenmarkFinland
Luxembourg
Germany
Sweden
JapanUS
32
43
69
72
73
77
88
93
94
129
132
133
196
249
315
28
35
69
6969
70
80
93
106
135
64
122
171
248
312
theme 3: scientific and technological productivity
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
39/77
s Some sectors have a mucothers. Consequently, wlevels there is a need to be
trial and technological strus Innovation and invention
captured by patents, sinpatent compared with the
s Not all inventions are pat
gies to protect inventions Two other points should btween the European and US patent data are recorded by tbetween the EPO and USPTOcation date of a patent depen
cific to a particular patent ovantage effect in that, the patent system because it is thcountries will be dominant i
One method which has beenadvantage effect is the use
Figure 3.1.4 : Average annual growth in US patents (%),1995 to latest available year (1)
United Kingdom
Germany
Italy (2)
EU
Netherlands
Austria
Spain
Belgium
Finland
Luxembourg
Sweden
Greece
Denmark
Ireland
Portugal
9.23
9.66
9.83
9.93
10.55
10.62
12.35
12.37
12.45
14.09
15.48
17.84
18.23
19.9737.97
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
40/77
theme 3: scientific and technological productivity
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
41/77
Figure 3.2.2: Average annupublications, 1995
7.33
7.26
7.01
6.05
4.92
4.37
4.34
4.26
4.17
3.573.27
3.04
2.92
2.74
1.52
Figure 3.2.1: Number of scientific publications per millionpopulation, latest available year (1)
Sweden
Denmark
Finland
Netherlands
United Kingdom
Belgium
Austria
US
Germany
France
EU
Ireland
Japan
Spain
Italy
Greece
1,431
1,214
1,157
963
949
810
717
708
657
652
613
542
498
471
457
340
theme 3: scientific and technological productivity
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
42/77
The Scandinavian countries show a remarkable lead measured bytheir number of scientific publications (Figure 3.2.1). This lead is notsomething new. In these countries, the growth rates of the number of
publications are higher than the EU-average since 1995.
Citation data (Figure 3.2.3) show a different picture. Here, thedata has been calculated as the sum of the top 1 % of the publica-tions per field (normalised by field) in a period from 1997-1999.On a country level, achieving more than 1 % of highly cited pa-
pers, is in this respect, performing above the world average. Com-paring the EU-15, US and Japan, the US percentage is with 1.27%only slightly higher than the EU one with 1.20%. Japan is signifi-cantly lower with 0.65% (Figure 3.2.3).
Looking at the total number of the most highly cited papers (Fig-ure 3.2.4), the US and EU-15 produce most of the publications.
Japan is behind the larger publishing countries such as UK, Ger-many, and France, but Italy and the Netherlands also have highlevels. Per capita, Sweden and Denmark have a larger number ofhighly cited publications than the Netherlands, UK and Belgium.The US performs well below 5 Member States and Japan evenmuch lower. (Figure 3.2.5).
Figure 3.2.3: Number of of total number of s
0.80
1.0
1
1
theme 3: scientific and technological productivity
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
43/77
Figure 3.2.5: Numbeper million popula
42
31
29
27
26
26
18
12
12
8
Figure 3.2.4 : Total number of highly cited papers,
latest available year (1)
United Kingdom
Germany
France
Italy
Netherlands
Sweden
Spain
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
Austria
Ireland
Portugal
Japan
EU
US
3,182
2,407
1,551
1,520
1,005
850
514
489
421
362
257
206
96
82
13,566
11,495
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
44/77
theme 3: scientific and technological productivity
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
45/77
raphy. More papers will be produced in the first case, and theseface more competition to be cited then in the latter field. It is there-fore often necessary to normalise these size effects for a citation
analysis, and in order to compare between countries or fields. Thedata for the citation data here have been field normalised, and thetop one percent from each field has been taken for analysis
The denominator used here is million population. One can envis-age other possible denominators, depending on the interpretation
desired (e.g. number of researchers in a country), and these mayproduce significantly different results. It is therefore important tointerpret such ratios carefully according to the issue and the analy-sis in question.
Definitions and sources
Number of scientific publications: CD-rom version of the databaseof the Institute for Scientific Information ISI, Philadelphia andprocessed by the Centre for Science and Technology Studies CWTS, Leiden University. Full-counting per country, i.e. a publi-cation by authors from two or more countries will be credited as
Figure 3.2.6: Number of of researchers - average
Researchers - a
Source: DG ResearchData: ISI, CWTSNotes: D,E,P: 1995-99; B
(2) L data are no
Scientificpublications
-averageannualgrowth(%)
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
-1 1 3 5
D JPB
I
UKNL
EU (2) S
DK
F
U
theme 3: scientific and technological productivity
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
46/77
Indicator: Percentage of innovative firmsco-operating with other
firms/universities/public research institutesWhat does this indicator tell us?
This indicator measures cooperation patterns that may contributeto the strengthening of transfers of knowledge and innovation. In-creasingly, innovation relies on the combination of different
sources of knowledge and expertise. Some of this may be externalto the firm, and can be acquired through co-operation with otherfirms, as well as through the exploitation of public research bymeans of links between firms and universities/public research in-stitutes. Such cooperation can help to accelerate the generation ofnew ideas and their diffusion.
Innovation cooperation can have important effects on S&T pro-ductivity in firms, through sharing (and thus reducing) the costs ofR&D, while at the same time improving the quality of new prod-ucts and shortening product life cycles.
Figure 3.4.1. Percentage oother firms, universities o
18.0
19.0
23.0
23.0
25.0
29.0
29.0
30.0
31.0
32.0
theme 3: scientific and technological productivity
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
47/77
gure 3.4.2), one finds that iland enterprises involved in more than three-quarters of
Germany is the one countstrongly influences due to itimproved products), with levative products.
Questions arising from
Notwithstanding some methtween countries (see below),
s Why do innovative firms iels of co-operation. Is this (higher proportion of secto
lent, higher proportion of s What are the public effor
university-industry links, fects of these measures?
s What measures do countri
Figure 3.4.2: Share of turnover linked to new or improvedproducts from innovators by engagement in innovation
co-operation, manufacturing (1996)
EU (1)
Germany
Italy
Austria
Ireland
Spain
Portugal
Netherlands
United Kingdom
Belgium
France
Denmark
Sweden
Finland
theme 3: scientific and technological productivity
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
48/77
some evidence that the definition of innovation was still not inter-preted in exactly the same way in all countries.
For example, the term technological innovation gave rise to dif-ferent interpretations in different countries (the term was not usedby Germany due to possible ambiguities). Some of the variationsin the percentage of innovative firms per country may be due inpart to this problem.
It has been found that co-operation tends to be significantly high-
er for large firms than for small ones, and is stronger in particularsectors, hence a countrys industrial structure will have an effectupon the size of this indicator.
There were also significant variations between countries in the re-sponse rate to the CIS2 questionnaire. However, where non-re-sponse was below 70% of the active enterprises in the sample, a
non-response analysis was performed, and the results of this analy-sis were taken into account to adjust the weighting factors used toproduce grossed-up figures for the whole population.
Nevertheless, this survey represents the most robust and harmonisedsource of data on innovation in Europe that currently exists.
Definitions and sources
The indicator is defined as th
the manufacturing sector thpetitors, clients or customeror with universities or othergovernment or private non-p
An innovative firm is definelogically new or improved ptechnologically new or impronew to the enterprise, but dthe enterprises market.
Innovation cooperation is dR&D and other innovation
does not necessarily imply commercial benefit from work, where there is no actcooperation.
(These definitions are in accnovation Survey and OECD/
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
49/77
theme 4: the impact of r&d on economic competitiveness and employment
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
50/77
s Growth in a countrys world market share of exports of high-tech products is also an indicator of specialisation, but here inthe production and export of products with a high knowledge
content.
Indicator: Growth rate of labour productivity
What does this indicator tell us?
Labour productivity is an indicator that measures the value addedcreated by one unit of labour (here one hour of average workingtime). It is clearly associated with the level of technology across alleconomic activities and to the relative share of activities in high
and low productivity sectors. However, it also depends upon thecapacity to absorb new technology, and in particular upon theavailability of highly qualified workers able to exploit the benefitsof technological progress. High growth rates of labour productiv-ity require prior innovative investment and are crucial for enhanc-ing competitiveness and social welfare.
Figure 4.1.1. Labour pro
in PPS, late
25.5
29.1
29.3
30.1
31.4
32.4
32.7
33.0
33.9
34.5
34.
3
35.
theme 4: the impact of r&d on economic competitiveness and employment
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
51/77
In the European Union, Luxembourg has the highest level (nearlytwice the average EU level) and the second highest growth rate oflabour productivity.
The labour productivity levels of many other European coun-tries follow with great distance to Luxembourg but are stillabove (Figure 4.1.1) the EU average (Belgium, Netherlands,Italy, France, Denmark, Ireland, Austria and Germany). Also theannual average growth rate is lower than the EU average for
only two of these countries, Italy and the Netherlands. The high-est rate of growth of labour productivity is found in Ireland(4.2%), just before Luxembourg. For Austria it is also quite high(2.6%). (Figure 4.1.2).
Just below the European Union average level we find Finland,
Sweden, United Kingdom, while the lower levels of labour pro-ductivity are found in the Mediterranean countries (Portugal,Greece and to a lesser extent Spain). As the annual averagegrowth rates of their labour productivity are rather high, Portu-gal and Greece are on a catching-up trajectory. However, thisis not the case for Spain where the rhythm of productivitygrowth is rather slow The United Kingdoms level of productiv-
Figure 4.1.2. Labour proaverage annual real growth
0.69
0.73
0.89
1.07
1.31
1.46
1.50
1.72
1.77
2.04
2.5
2.5
2
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
52/77
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
53/77
theme 4: the impact of r&d on economic competitiveness and employment
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
54/77
employment in high-tech indabove the EU average. AnothItaly, Ireland, France, Finlan
ues that are under the EU avand Spain lie further down wPortugal have the lowest shadustries is growing faster th4.2.4), i.e. the shares are inFinland and Spain the grow
dustries is relatively high. Halso risen strongly over the sconstant.
In some large countries (UKdustries is comparable to grtively low levels of averaggrowth of total employmengrowth of employment in thtries is positive since 1995. um high-tech industries is ment since 1995.
Figure 4.2.1. Share of value added of high- and mediumhigh-tech industries in total output (%), latest available year (1)
(only available for eleven countries)
Luxembourg (na)
Italy (na)
Ireland (na)
Spain
Greece (na)
Portugal
Netherlands
France
Austria
Denmark
Belgium
US
Finland
Japan
Germany
4.21
5.34
5.63
6.86
7.04
7.17
8.08
8.89
10.42
10.95
5.44
theme 4: the impact of r&d on economic competitiveness and employment
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
55/77
long term evolution of thenecessary. This may partlgrowth rates.
s High- and medium high-tedriving sectors of the ecoskills, excellence and comptors in the countries increahave been applied and whtechnology mastery?
s What are the factors behinNetherlands and Belgium tries?
s What are the factors tha
tween countries in laboadded divided by the numhigh-technology industriedifferences in the compotechnology industries , pthe measurement of the nemployee?
Figure 4.2.2. Share of high- and medium high-techemployment in total employment (%), latest available year (1)
Portugal
Netherlands
US
Spain
Austria
Japan
Denmark
Belgium
Finland
FranceIreland
Italy (3)
United Kingdom
EU (2)
Sweden
Germany
3.48
4.66
5.30
5.46
5.65
6.24
6.81
7.22
7.23
7.24
7.31
7.62
7.65
7.71
8.26
10.87
theme 4: the impact of r&d on economic competitiveness and employment
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
56/77
These indicators only give information on the direct effects on out-put and employment in high- and medium high-tech industries.However, there may be considerable indirect effects on growth and
employment in other sectors of the economy due to dissemination oftechnical progress in other sectors, derived innovations, and substi-tution of new products or services for traditional ones. In some cas-es secondary effects may also create unemployment in other sectors.
Definitions and sources
In Europe, output in high-tech and medium high-tech industries ismeasured by value added, in euro, in high-tech and medium high-tech industries according to the OECD-high-tech and mediumhigh-tech industries definition (see OECD STI working paper
1997, (OECD/GD(97)216)), which includes: aerospace, comput-ers, office machinery, electronics-communications, pharmaceuti-cals, scientific instruments, motor vehicles, electrical machinery,chemicals, other transport equipment and non-electrical machin-ery, (i.e. NACE Rev. 1 codes: 35.3, 30, 32, 24.4, 33, 34, 31, 24(excl. 24.4), 35.2+35.4+35.5, 29) Source: These data were collect-ed in the Member States and the USA
Employment in high-tech anfined as the number of emplohigh-tech and medium higmember states USA and Jap
Figure 4.2.3: GDP and vhigh tech industries - aver
(only availab
Average a
Source:DG ResearchData: Eurostat, Member StateNote: (1) D,P and US: 1995-9
Average
annualrealgrowthof
value
addedofhigh-and
medium
high-techindustries(%)
-4
-20
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 1
D
JP
theme 4: the impact of r&d on economic competitiveness and employment
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
57/77
Total output is defined as gross domestic product (GDP) accordingto National Accounts ESA 1995 definition, in national currencyand current prices, converted to Euro and PPS. Source: Eurostat
Indicators: knowled
Share of total output
to growth of output Share of total employ
to growth of employm
What do these indicato
The shares of knowledge intput and total employment inof knowledge intensive actiknowledge-based economy. highly skilled personnel and Some of these activities play
tivity of research activities manufacturing firms and als
Analysis of national per
Amongst the countries for w
Figure 4.2.4: Total employment and high- and medium high-tech
employment - average annual growth, 1995-99 (1)
Average annual growth of total employment (%)
Source:DG ResearchData: Eurostat, Member States, OECD, Japan(Nistep)Notes: (1) DK,EL,A,EU,US: 1995-98; P: 1998-99.
(2) L,P data are not included in the EU average.
(3) see annex.
Averageannualgrowth
of
high-andmedium
high-techemployment(%)
-4-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
P
EEL
IRL
FI
S
A
JP
FI US
UKEU
DDK
B
NL
theme 4: the impact of r&d on economic competitiveness and employment
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
58/77
Figure 4.3.2. Share oemployment in total em
rate of growth from
5.55
2.67
2.26
2.22
2.10
2.72
1.66
1.74
0.92
-0.11
2.86
0.10
1.60
1.70
0.55
18.8
21
Figure 4.3.1. share of value added of knowledge intensiveservices in total output: latest available year and averageannual real growth from 1995 to latest available year (1)
(only available for eight countries)
Greece (na)
Spain
Ireland (na)
Italy (na)
Luxembourg (na)
Sweden (na)
United Kingdom (na)
Japan (na)
Portugal
Finland (na)
France
Austria
Denmark
EU (na)
Netherlands
Germany
Belgium
12.55
-0.04
-0.61
-1.59
1.97
1.38
0.81
10.68
31.71
33.54
35.93
39.52
42.24
46.64
0.0932.88
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
59/77
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
60/77
Whil h l i
theme 4: the impact of r&d on economic competitiveness and employment
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
61/77
While technology receipts aritiveness in selling its intantechnology can also have an
hancing the technological pochasing country (especially technology). If one considerand imports (Figure 4.4.3), also Finland, Germany and Stechnology.
Questions arising from
Some important questions fo
s What are the factors explaceipts recorded by Belgium
s
What are the effects on teand regulatory policies? Wbuy and sell ?
s How do the transactions nology receipts and payme
s How can government help
Figure 4.4.1. Technology balance of payments receiptsas % of GDP,latest available year (1)
0.03
0.08
0.14
0.18
0.19
0.270.39
0.45
0.64
1.12
1.29
2.05
Luxembourg (na)
Ireland (na)
Greece (na)
Denmark (na)
Spain
Finland
Italy (2)
France
Japan
PortugalUS
United Kingdom
Germany
Austria
Netherlands
Belgium
theme 4: the impact of r&d on economic competitiveness and employment
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
62/77
Figure 4.4.3. Tech(exports - imports) as %
-0.44
-0.24
-0.18
-0.14
-0.10
-0.06-0.04
Figure 4.4.2. Technology balance of payments receipts - averageannual real growth (%), 1995 to latest available year (1)
Ireland (na)
Greece (na)
Denmark (na)
Spain
Finland
Italy (2)
France
Japan
US
United Kingdom
Germany
Austria
Netherlands
Belgium
38.12
29.16
14.89
14.47
13.25
10.92
10.81
9.91
7.65
5.12
3.03
Portugal16.86
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
63/77
theme 4: the impact of r&d on economic competitiveness and employment
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
64/77
Figure 4.5.2. World marproducts - average an
availa
-6.52
-3.99
-1.27
-0.46
-0.01
0.07
0.66
0.89
0.91
2.62
3.92
4.7
6
6
Figure 4.5.1. World market share of exports of high-techproducts (%), latest available year (1), (2)
Spain
Denmark
Austria
Finland
Sweden
Belgium and Luxembourg
Italy
Ireland
Netherlands
United Kingdom
Germany
France
Japan
USEU (including intra-EU trade)
0.59
0.66
0.74
0.83
1.44
1.44
1.64
2.67
4.54
6.31
7.32
7.39
9.95
19.75
35.73
theme 4: the impact of r&d on economic competitiveness and employment
Fi 4 5 4 W ld
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
65/77
Figure 4.5.3. World market share of exports of high-techproducts excluding intra-EU trade (%), latest available year (1)
Source: DG ResearchD t C t C t d
18.49
25.04
12.62
0
5
10
15
20
25
EU (2) US Japan
Figure 4.5.4. World mar
products excluding igrowth (%), 1995
Source: DG Research
0.45
-10
-8-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
EU (2)
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
66/77
to calculate high tech exports for the Structural Indicators exercise) 2 Computers-office machin
theme 4: the impact of r&d on economic competitiveness and employment
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
67/77
to calculate high tech exports for the Structural Indicators exercise).The advantage of this method is that Comext gives much more up-to-date and accurate data for the EU countries, while Comtrade is
the only source for the other countries. However, these two sourcesuse slightly different definitions and methodologies for recordingtrade, which may affect comparability in some cases.
The introduction of the single market on 1 January 1993 led to theabolition of customs formalities between the Member States,which had served as the traditional source of trade statistics. In or-der to continue to monitor intra-EU trade, a new collection systemwas introduced known as INTRASTAT, which involves statisticaldeclarations sent directly by businesses to the competent nationalauthorities, as well as a system of thresholds abolishing all statisti-cal obligations for almost two thirds of businesses. INTRASTATrequires various adjustments to be made to data in order to correct
for the under-estimation of certain flows. For this and other rea-sons, Eurostat advises that figures on intra-EU trade should be in-terpreted with caution. They are also subject to frequent revision.
Definitions and sources
2. Computers office machin[75113+75131+75132+7
3. Electronics-telecommuni[76381+76383+(764-76476499)+7722+77261+777763+7764+7768+89879
4. Pharmacy [5413+5415+5
5. Scientific instruments[774+8711+8713+8714+8742)+88111+88121+88
6. Electrical machinery[77862+77863+77864+7
7. Chemistry [52222+52223
8. Non-electrical machinery[71489+71499+71871+773144+73151+73153+7373733+73735
9 Armament [891 ]
ANNEX 1: Notes concerning the data (4) Italy: The data have no
Annex 1: notes concerning the data
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
68/77
ANNEX 1: Notes concerning the data
GENERAL NOTES(1) Country codes
B: BelgiumDK: DenmarkD: Germany
EL: GreeceE: SpainF: FranceIRL: IrelandI: ItalyL: Luxembourg
NL: NetherlandsA: AustriaP: PortugalFIN: FinlandS: SwedenUK: United Kingdom
(4) Italy: The data have noItaly.
(5) The average annual real gwith the exception of labour in PPS at 1995 prices and exctional currency was carried ostat) and price indices of GDbeginning of April 2001. In thwere provided directly by DG
(6) The average annual rate(year a) and last year (year b
g= (I
b )1
1.I
a
ba
NOTES BY INDICAT
INDICATOR. Number of
INDICATOR. Number of new science and technology (ii) General government ex
Annex 1: notes concerning the data
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
69/77
gyPhDs in relation to the population in thecorresponding age group.
(i) All PhD data refer to the ISCED97 definition of science andtechnology PhDs.
(ii) Japan: PhD and population data supplied by Japan.
INDICATOR. Total research and developmentexpenditure in relation to GDP.
(i) Gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GERD) for B (1999), DK(1999), D (2000), F (1999), A (2000), P (2000), FIN (2000) is es-timated or provisional.
(ii) Gross domestic product (GDP) for A (2000), P (2000), FIN(2000) is estimated or provisional.
(iii) Japan: GERD adjusted by OECD.
INDICATOR. Research and development expenditurefinanced by industry in relation to industrial output.
(i) R&D expenditure financed by industry for DK (1999), D (2000),
( ) g(2000), A (2000), P (2000), provisional.
(iii) Japan: General governmaccount budgets and was su(iv) US: The % share of the aresearch was supplied by the
INDICATOR. Share of SM
executed by the busines(i) Publicly funded business s(1997), EL (1997), P (2000) visional.
(ii) Total publicly funded bu
P(2000) is estimated or provINDICATOR. Volume of early stages (seed and s
Total seed and start-up ventuor provisional.Total seed an
INDICATOR. Percentage of innovative firms co- INDICATOR. Share of kn
Annex 1: notes concerning the data
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
70/77
goperating with other firms/universities/publicresearch institutes.
Percentage of innovating firms for DK (1996) is estimated or pro-visional.
INDICATOR. High-tech and medium high-techindustries: share of total employment andcontribution to growth of employment.
Employment in high-tech or medium high-tech industries for DK(1998) is estimated or provisional.
total output and contribgrowth of output.
Value added of knowledge (1999) is estimated or provis
INDICATOR. Technologas a proportion of GDP.
Total technology balance oftimated or provisional.
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
71/77
Annex 2: list of indicators specified the working document from the commission
2. THEME 2: Public and private investment in RTD
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
72/77
p
INDICATORS
s Total research and development ex-penditure in relation to GDP andbreakdown by source of funding
s Research and development expen-
diture financed by industry in rela-tion to industrial output
s Share of the annual governmentbudget allocated to research
s Share of SMEs in publicly fundedR&D executed by the business sec-tor
s Volume of venture capital invest-
STATUS
Data availableSource: Eurostat/OECD/ MemberStates
Data available
Source: Eurostat/OECD/ MemberStates
Data availableSource: Eurostat/OECD/ MemberStates
Data available (butno regular har-monised statistics)
Data available (but
FURTHER DEVELOPMENTSTO BE EXPLORED
Breakdown of the funding by basic and ap-plied research
Proportion of R&D executed by industry
financed by public funding
Breakdown of research budget by mainpolicy objectives
Allocation of budget to policy support Breakdown of research budget by main
sector (e.g. civil and defence)
Proportion of SMEs (and if possible newSMEs) amongst enterprises conductingresearch activities
Investigate how comparability of data
Annex 2: list of indicators specified the working document from the commission
3. THEME 3: Scientific and technological productivity
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
73/77
g p y
INDICATORS
s Number of patents at the Europeanand US patent offices per capita
s Number of scientific publicationsand most cited publications percapita
s Number of spin-offs generated byuniversities and research centres
s Percentage of innovative firms co-operating with other firms/univer-
STATUS
Data availableSource: EPO/USPTO
Data availableSource: ScienceCitation Index
New indicator(to be developed)
Data availableSource: Eurostat
FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS
TO BE EXPLORED
Share of patents in high-tech areas Explore other possible scaling factors (e.g.
business R&D expenditure, number ofresearchers)
Breakdown by science domain (examinethe possible inclusion of social sciences andhumanities)
Explore other possible scaling factors (e.g.non-business R&D expenditure, number ofresearchers)
Proportion of joint publications in thenational total
Need to examine methodological issues
Indicators of performance of spin-offs Explore suitable scaling factors (per capita,
GDP, etc.)
Other forms of co-operation between uni-versities and industry
Annex 2: list of indicators specified the working document from the commission
4. THEME 4: Impact of RTD on economic competitiveness and employ
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
74/77
p p p y
INDICATORS
s Growth rate of labour productivity
s Share of high-tech and medium-
high-tech industries (+ their contri-bution to growth) in total employ-ment and output
s Share of knowledge intensive ser-vices (+ their contribution togrowth) in total employment andoutput
s Technology balance of paymentsreceipts as a proportion of GDP
STATUS
Data availableSource: Eurostat/OECD/ MemberStates
Data available
Source: Eurostat/OECD/ MemberStates
Data availableSource: Eurostat/OECD/ MemberStates
Data available (butnot for all countriesand all years)Source: Eurostat/OECD/ MemberStates
FURTHER DEVELOPMENTSTO BE EXPLORED
Growth in total factor productivity Growth rate of labour productivity in high
tech, medium-tech. and low-tech. compa-nies
Breakdown by sectors (including contribu-
tion of the ICT sector)
Breakdown by individual service sectors
Breakdown by type of transaction (e.g.rights of use of patents, etc.)
Breakdown by intra-EU and extra-EU Investigate how to redefine the indicator
for S&T purposes
European Commision
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
75/77
Towards a European Research Area - Key Figures 2001 -Special edition: Indicanational research policies
Luxembourg: Office for Publications of the European Communities
2001Key Figures 73 pp.21x14.8 cm.
ISBN 92-894-1183-X
BELGIQUE/BELGI
Jean De Lannoy
Avenue du Roi 202/Koningslaan 202B-1190 Bruxelles/BrusselTl (32 2) 538 43 08
STERREICH
Manzsche Verlags- undUniversittsbuchhandlung GmbH
Kohlmarkt 16A Wi
EESTI
Eesti Kaubandus-Tstuskoda
(EstonianChamberof Commerceand Industry)Toom-Kooli 17EE 10130 Tallinn
Renouf Publishing Co. Ltd
5369 Chemin Canotek Road, Unit 1Ottawa, Ontario K1J 9J3Tel. (1-613) 745 26 65Fax (1-613) 745 76 60E mail order dept@reno fbooks com
Venta Salg Verkauf Pvlseiw Sales Vente Vendita Verkoop Venda Myynti Frsljninghttp://eur-op.eu.int/general/en/s-ad.htm
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
76/77
Tl. (32-2) 538 43 08Fax (32-2) 538 08 41E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.jean-de-lannoy.be
La librairie europenne/De Europese Boekhandel
Rue de la Loi 244/Wetstraat 244B-1040 Bruxelles/BrusselTl. (32-2) 295 26 39Fax (32-2) 735 08 60E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.libeurop.be
Moniteur belge/Belgisch Staatsblad
Rue de Louvain 40-42/Leuvenseweg 40-42B-1000 Bruxelles/BrusselTl. (32-2) 552 22 11Fax (32-2) 511 01 84E-mail: [email protected]
DANMARK
J. H. Schultz Information A/S
Herstedvang 12
DK-2620 AlbertslundTlf. (45) 43 63 23 00Fax (45) 43 63 19 69E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.schultz.dk
DEUTSCHLAND
Bundesanzeiger Verlag GmbH
VertriebsabteilungAmsterdamer Strae 192D-50735 KlnTel. (49-221) 97 66 80Fax (49-221) 97 66 82 78E-Mail: [email protected]: http://www.bundesanzeiger.de
ELLADA/GREECE
G. C. Eleftheroudakis SA
International BookstorePanepistimiou 17GR-10564 AthinaTel. (30-1) 331 41 80/1/2/3/4/5Fax (30-1) 323 98 21E-mail: [email protected]: [email protected]
ESPAA
Boletn Oficial del Estado
Trafalgar, 27E-28071 MadridT l (34) 915 38 21 11 (lib )
A-1014 WienTel. (43-1) 53 16 11 00Fax (43-1) 53 16 11 67E-Mail: [email protected]: http://www.manz.at
PORTUGAL
Distribuidora de Livros Bertrand Ld.
Grupo Bertrand, SARua das Terras dos Vales, 4-AApartado 60037P-2700 AmadoraTel. (351) 214 95 87 87Fax (351) 214 96 02 55E-mail: [email protected]
Imprensa Nacional-Casa da Moeda, SA
Sector de Publicaes OficiaisRua da Escola Politcnica, 135P-1250-100 Lisboa CodexTel. (351) 213 94 57 00Fax (351) 213 94 57 50E-mail: [email protected]
URL: http://www.incm.pt
SUOMI/FINLAND
Akateeminen Kirjakauppa/Akademiska Bokhandeln
Keskuskatu 1/Centralgatan 1PL/PB 128FIN-00101 Helsinki/HelsingforsP./tfn (358-9) 121 44 18F./fax (358-9) 121 44 35Shkposti: [email protected]: http://www.akateeminen.com
SVERIGE
BTJ AB
Traktorvgen 11-13S-221 82 LundTlf. (46-46) 18 00 00Fax (46-46) 30 79 47E-post: [email protected]: http://www.btj.se
UNITED KINGDOM
The Stationery Office Ltd
Customer ServicesPO Box 29Norwich NR3 1GNTel. (44) 870 60 05-522Fax (44) 870 60 05-533
EE-10130 TallinnTel. (372) 646 02 44Fax (372) 646 02 45E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.koda.ee
HRVATSKA
Mediatrade Ltd
Pavla Hatza 1HR-10000 ZagrebTel. (385-1) 481 94 11Fax (385-1) 481 94 11
MAGYARORSZG
Euro Info Service
Szt. Istvn krt.12II emelet 1/APO Box 1039H-1137 BudapestTel. (36-1) 329 21 70Fax (36-1) 349 20 53E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.euroinfo.hu
MALTA
Miller Distributors Ltd
Malta International AirportPO Box 25Luqa LQA 05Tel. (356) 66 44 88Fax (356) 67 67 99E-mail: [email protected]
POLSKA
Ars Polona
Krakowskie Przedmiescie 7Skr. pocztowa 1001PL-00-950 WarszawaTel. (48-22) 826 12 01Fax (48-22) 826 62 40E-mail: [email protected]
ROMNIA
Euromedia
Str.Dionisie Lupu nr. 65, sector 1RO-70184 BucurestiTel. (40-1) 315 44 03Fax (40-1) 312 96 46E-mail: [email protected]
SLOVAKIA
Centrum VTI SR
E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.renoufbooks.com
EGYPT
The Middle East Observer
41 Sherif Street
CairoTel. (20-2) 392 69 19Fax (20-2) 393 97 32E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.meobserver.com.eg
INDIA
EBIC India
3rd Floor, Y. B. Chavan CentreGen. J. Bhosale Marg.Mumbai 400 021Tel. (91-22) 282 60 64Fax (91-22) 285 45 64E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.ebicindia.com
JAPAN
PSI-Japan
Asahi Sanbancho Plaza #2067-1 Sanbancho, Chiyoda-kuTokyo 102Tel. (81-3) 32 34 69 21Fax (81-3) 32 34 69 15E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.psi-japan.co.jp
MALAYSIA
EBIC Malaysia
Suite 45.02, Level 45Plaza MBf (Letter Box 45)8 Jalan Yap Kwan Seng50450 Kuala LumpurTel. (60-3) 21 62 92 98Fax (60-3) 21 62 61 98E-mail: [email protected]
MXICO
Mundi Prensa Mxico, SA de CV
Ro Pnuco, 141Colonia CuauhtmocMX-06500 Mxico, DFTel. (52-5) 533 56 58Fax (52-5) 514 67 99E-mail: [email protected]
PHILIPPINES
EBIC Philippines
15
LEGAL NOTICE
Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on
behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which may
b d f h f ll i i f i
-
7/28/2019 Bench Marking 2001
77/77
KI-38-
01-463-EN-C
OFFICE FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS
OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
L-2985 Luxembourg
be made of the following information.
European Communities, 2001
DG Research
ISBN 92-894-1183-X
9 789289 411837 >