Search on RIO-PSF

Innovative growth firms thus constitute a very important target for policy action, particularly at times of economic downturn such as the current one. In particular, EU member countries experiencing severe economic distress are well advised to consider how to best harness the potential of this category of firms. The paper observed that while supply-side policies and support mechanisms are relatively well known, much less is known about demand-side policies and support mechanisms. The paper presented a simple matrix that could be used to assess the comprehensiveness (and complementarity) of both supply- and demand-side policies to encourage innovative firm growth.

There is increasing awareness in Europe about the importance of High Growth Innovative Enterprise (HGIEs) and policies for HGIEs. The examples from Poland and France show that countries are developing related policies; they may however also show that in many countries the development of such policies is in a fairly early stage. Venture capital from funds is an important source of finance for HGIEs.

Policies that improve the performance of the science base are those that both maximise inputs and improve the efficiency of the transformation process. Moreover, given the need for the science base to link effectively with other subsystems of national and international innovation systems in order to improve overall system performance, policies facilitating such linkages are also needed. The paper discussed the policy steps needed to improve the performance of the science base under five main dimensions.

Demand‐side policies are those that can induce investment in technologies by enlarging markets for them. Rising expectations about future demand for new technologies increase the incentives for investments in innovation by enlarging payoffs to successful innovations.  This paper presents several success stories.

Policy makers are already well aware of the need to maximise benefits and reduce costs, including regulatory burdens. In this respect, procedures and methods are already highly advanced at EC-level, where impact assessments are common for new regulation, and more fitness checks and evaluations are being carried out on existing regulation. This guide aims to complement this and to provide tools to support a specific aspect in the regulatory screening, i.e. to see if the regulation is stimulating or hindering innovation. At country level, systematic analyses of existing regulation are less prevalent, and especially given the complexity and vast quantity of regulations in each country, this is understandable. However, national policy makers have a strong interest in shaping key regulations affecting innovation in their countries in a desired way. A better and complete understanding of regulation effects are therefore necessary prerequisites. This short guide aims to provide a step-wise approach for addressing this complex issue and to provide tools and tips for organising the screening systematically.

Authors: Viola Peter, Geert van der Veen, Asel Doranova

Based on Commitment 15 for the EU and Member States of the Innovation Union flagship to “…undertake a screening of the regulatory framework in key areas, […] with a view to identifying the rules that need to be improved or updated and/or new rules that need to be implemented in order to provide sufficient and continuous incentives to drive innovation”, Technopolis Consulting Group has been asked to develop a methodology for screening regulatory frameworks and to enable an assessment of their impact on innovation. The assignment would:

• develop a methodology for the screening of regulatory frameworks, and
• apply the methodology on regulations defined through the two European Innovation Partnerships (EIP) Water and Raw Materials, specifically focussing on innovation effects.

This final deliverable includes the results obtained for the project on “Screening Regulatory Frameworks”. The report contains the extended methodology for regulatory screening and draws lessons from interviews and workshops. Annexed is data as well as the case studies.

Authors: Viola Peter, Geert van der Veen, Asel Doranova, Michal Miedzinski

The objective of the European Knowledge Transfer  Policy Surveys in 2010 and 2012 was monitoring the status of implementation of the European Commission’s “Recommendation on the management of intellectual property in knowledge transfer activities and Code of Practice for universities and other public research organisations” from 2008. Responding to the survey fulfilled the Recommendation’s requirement that Member States should “inform the Commission by 15 July 2010 and every two years thereafter of measures taken on the basis of this Recommendation, as well as their impact”. Associated States were also kindly requested to fill in the questionnaire. The following findings are based on answers from the countries, mostly by representatives of the European Research Area Committee’s working group on knowledge transfer. For four countries – Bosnia- Herzegovina, Italy, Liechtenstein and Turkey – other sources were taken instead.

Authors: Anthony Arundel , Nordine Es-Sadki, Franz Barjak, Pieter Perrett , Olga Samuel, Stefan Lilischkis

International knowledge transfer  is particularly influenced by the identity of the partners. Thus, cooperation between member states and European partners may be quite different from cooperation between member states and third countries. Similarly cross-sectoral cooperation raises specific issues, particularly for cooperation between academia and industry. It is this latter relationship that is of particular interest to this report as the academia-industry partnership promises great economic and scientific potential. The aim of this report is to analyse the mechanisms of International knowledge transfer  and  to provide recommendations for effective tools.

Authors: Lorenz Kaiser, Professor Johanna Gibson, Peter Ganea, and Puay Tang

Research partnerships are a critical element of the innovation landscape which, in turn, is vital to fostering growth in a knowledge-based economy. Globalisation means that research and innovation (R&I) collaborations are becoming increasingly internationalised. This presents a challenge to the translation of knowledge, as different partners in different countries will naturally seek to reap the rewards, not only from their own inputs to a collaborative venture but also from the synergies of working with others both in Europe and outside it. Intellectual property (IP) represents the system by which the value of knowledge can be captured and indeed IP has been described by many as the ""currency of the knowledge-based economy”. These guidelines outline the significant issues for the management of intellectual property (IP) by universities and other public research organisations (PROs) within Europe in collaborations with PROs and companies in countries outside Europe. They build on earlier European Commission-based guidance and communications on knowledge transfer.

While patents play a key role as regards the technological output of research and innovation systems, their costs and relative affordability still varies widely between countries. The study gives a statistical overview of patent costs and their key elements such as administrative, maintenance, process and translation costs for the EU, EFTA and key partner economies. It also provides information on average patent life and the number of validated countries by technology fields. The report furthermore analyses the impact of patent cost differences on innovation and economic outcomes.

Forthcoming.

The JRC managed Public Research Funding (PREF) study has collected information on and analysed national public research funding. It provides an overview of its evolution and current state in European and selected non-European countries, particularly as concerns funding themes, fields and the types of allocation (competitive project based versus institutional funding). The study was conducted by a consortium led by IRCRES CNR and involving researchers from USI, AIT and NIFU as well as a number of country experts. 

The aim of the PSF Specific Support for Armenia, carried out by a panel of independent European research and innovation policy experts from April 2019 to February 2020, was to assist in reforming and reinforcing the performance of the Armenian research institutions and enhancing cooperation between higher education and research institutions.

Drawing on the experience of other EU and associated countries, notably the Baltic States, the PSF team developed 19 recommendations and a roadmap for their implementation covering three main topics:

• A proposal for research evaluation arrangements and the launch of a first national level evaluation of publicly funded research institutions;
• Design of a performance-based funding system and advice on future implementation; and
• Development of a set of policy measures aimed at bridging the gap between higher education and research institutes, and notably supporting a shift towards research-based education in universities.

At the crossroads of Europe and Asia, Armenia’s rich history and traditions somehow overshadow a vibrant (yet untapped) youth culture and tech scene, Policy Support Facility (PSF) experts discovered during a year-long investigation. Their findings point to concrete actions and a timetable for reforming the country’s research and higher education ecosystem. 

Despite evidence of progress and strong political will, Latvia’s research, innovation and higher education system remains wedded to EU funding cycles, making longer-term planning difficult, according to the latest study by the Policy Support Facility (PSF) under Horizon 2020. To boost overall investment and career prospects, and increase innovation capacity in the private sector, the PSF experts called on the Latvian government to explore a strategic yet practical course of action.

A PSF expert panel has examined how Cyprus’s publicly funded universities and research institutes can increase their engagement with the country’s business community. The panel found that their engagement is, indeed, currently low. The main reason is not an unwillingness to engage but a shortage of firms with sufficient “absorptive capacity” as to be able to benefit from the research, laboratory and consulting services that the universities and research institutes could offer: where there is very little effective demand, developing sustainable supply is practically impossible. It follows that measures to boost engagement with the enterprise sector need to go hand in hand with policy action to raise business demand for knowledge-based services.

The PSF Specific Support to Malta aims to provide external advice and operational recommendations on an Open Access policy to the country’s authorities. The objective is to enable Malta to adopt a timely and effective path towards achieving European goals related to Open Access and bridging the gap with other leading Member States in this area.

The report, carried out between October 2019 and March 2020 by a dedicated PSF experts panel, provides high-level ambitions and outlines concrete recommendations for the development of a National Policy for Open Access to publications, research data and related issues for Malta.

Armenian translation of the Final Report of the Specific Support to Armenia. 

Expert panel of the Specific Support to Latvia.

This Final Report of the Mutual Learning Exercise on ‘National Strategies and Roadmaps for International Cooperation in R&I’ summarises findings from the workshops, discussions and thematic input papers produced during this exercise. The report reflects the main threads of an intense policy exchange on the various national approaches towards international cooperation in research and innovation and highlights identified sustained challenges and new or upcoming developments. Based on shared concerns, promising approaches and inspiring practices, conclusions are drawn, and recommendations are formulated to enhance the effectiveness of international R&I cooperation strategies, roadmaps and activities of the EU and its Member States.

The aim of the PSF Specific Support to Latvia, carried out by a panel of independent European R&I policy experts from June 2019 to February 2020, was to provide tailored advice and concrete recommendations on (1) attracting and retaining people in scientific and technological careers in Latvia and developing their skills and productivity, and (2) developing the employment of science and technology (S&T) human resources in the Latvian business sector.

The final report of the PSF Specific Support to Latvia provides an overview of the research and innovation system in Latvia and describes the current policy mix, before presenting the main findings along the two study questions and the respective recommendations from the panel.