The Global Innovation Index 2013
INSEAD-WIPO-Cornell University rank
142 countries on their innovation capabilities. Sixth annual index reshuffles
the top ten and shows gap widening between rich and poor countries.
The top 25 countries may be the same
- albeit in a different order from past years – but this year’s Global Innovation Index, produced by INSEAD, WIPO and Cornell University shows
there is no short-cut to successful innovation: it takes continued development
of talent, sustained investment, institutional support... and the right
mindset.
That accounts for some of the major
position shifts in this year’s top ten countries. “The U.S. is one of the
countries which, in spite of the crisis, has maintained its level of investment
in research and development and in innovation-related sectors. We see, for
instance, a remarkable increase in spending on computer software which is
directly applied to research and innovation,” said Bruno Lanvin, Executive
Director, INSEAD European Competitiveness Initiative & co-author, Global
Innovation Index Report. The USA moved up from 10th place last
year to number five this year.
While the rest of the top ten countries
in the GII remain the same as last year, their positions have shifted, with
Singapore falling out of the top 3, where it has resided for the past two
years, to 8th position.
Lanvin also notes that a
“stop-and-go” policy in terms of innovation investment is generally
detrimental to innovation performance. “It is much more difficult to stop
investment in innovation and to resume it in a year or two... than to maintain
a consistent flow of investment into innovation. Some countries have continued
to do that. The U.S. is one example which has translated that into significant
improvements in the ranking and governments have been using innovation
investment as a countercyclical policy instrument.”
For Singapore, Lanvin attributes the
fall mainly to the change in methodology which put more weight on the output
side of innovation, such as creativity on the internet, licensing trademarks
under the Madrid system, patents, R&D and trade-related items.
“Singapore remains very high in
terms of input and dropped significantly in terms of output which is where the
methodical changes have been the strongest. For instance, we see the rank of
Singapore dropping when we introduce items relating to the creation of GTLDs
(General Top Level Domain) names on the internet or creative industries so
these are areas where we expect further adjustments will be made next year,” he
added.
|
Top Ten
2013 Ranking
|
|||
|
1
|
Switzerland
(Number 1 in 2012)
|
6
|
Finland
(4)
|
|
2
|
Sweden (2)
|
7
|
Hong
Kong (China) (8)
|
|
3
|
United
Kingdom (5)
|
8
|
Singapore
(3)
|
|
4
|
Netherlands
(6)
|
9
|
Denmark
(7)
|
|
5
|
United
States of America (10)
|
10
|
Ireland
(9)
|
In its 6th edition, the
GII measures 142 countries, using 84 indicators, which include the quality of
universities, availability of microfinance and venture capital, to gauge
innovation capabilities and measurable results. On a global basis, research and
development (R&D) spending levels are surpassing 2008 levels in most
countries and existing innovation hubs are thriving.
The Innovation Learners
There were encouraging signs from
the developing markets in this year’s GII with 18 emerging economies
outperforming peers in their respective income groups (The Republic of Moldova,
China, India, Uganda, Armenia, Viet Nam, Malaysia, Jordan, Mongolia, Mali,
Kenya, Senegal, Hungary, Georgia, Montenegro, Costa Rica, Tajikistan and
Latvia).
“The reason why these countries have
emerged as the upcoming future champions of innovation is basically they are
focused on three main pillars of innovation: They have generally fostered
education, they have attracted talents and created talents for innovation;
second they have also nurtured the climate of investment around innovation,
they have created a culture of venture and risk capital which has helped local
investors; and last but not least they have also built strong and dynamic
structures of innovation, that is the institutional part of it which
should not be neglected,” said Lanvin.
Divide remains
But, as with last year’s GII, a
significant divide remains.
“It is clearly good news for the
countries at the top as the top 10 are the same as last year, the top 25 are
the same as last year with some games of musical chairs within those groups,
but the gap between these top countries and the rest seems to be increasing,”
said Lanvin.
Part of the reason for this, say the
report’s authors, is that innovation success leads to a virtuous circle, where
investment attracts further investment, as well as talent and innovation.
Poorer countries start from a lower financial basis and are having a hard time
catching up.
Even middle income countries such as
Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRICs), says Lanvin, are coming up against an
invisible wall, where they have progressed steadily over the years but are now
stuck. He suggests that “beyond the obvious ingredients for innovation: public,
private investment, education and R&D, there is an ecosystem that needs to
be built around factors that may be more difficult to define and measure, which
have to do with the fact that innovation is not just the result of innovation,
but it’s also a mindset.”
“The elements that are required to
develop the talents around innovation, the degree of cooperation, still have
yet to be defined and measured,” he added.
The Hub Effect
One way such weaknesses can be
overcome, says the GII, is by looking at “local specifics” in different parts
of the world to develop hubs of innovation activity. The report says that too
many innovation strategies have been focused on trying to replicate successes
in other parts of the world, such as Silicon Valley, rather than develop their
own strengths.
“For national-level policy makers
seeking to support innovation, realising the full potential of innovation in
their own backyards is often a more promising approach than trying to emulate
successful innovation models elsewhere,” said Francis Gurry, the Director
General of WIPO. “These hubs leverage local advantages with a global outlook on
markets and talent.”
Such hubs have come to define the
bee hives of economic activity and innovation taking place in cities such
as Dubai and Singapore, with centres of excellence such as Internet City
in Dubai, the Middle East’s biggest ICT hub and Singapore’s “Knowledge Hub”
where INSEAD’s Asia Campus sits amid a bustling cluster of academic and
research institutions.
“What happens at the sub-national
level typically in clusters or among regions or in the city are at least as
important as the countrywide type of data,” says Lanvin. “We see the emergence
of these multifaceted, multitalented, multilayered type of clusters as an
ingredient for success.”
By Bruno Lanvin, Executive Director,
INSEAD European Competitiveness Initiative & co-author, Global Innovation
Index Report with Chris Howells, Deputy Editor
http://knowledge.insead.edu/innovation/the-worlds-most-innovative-countries-the-global-innovation-index-2013-2525
No comments:
Post a Comment