Regional Innovation Systems and Regional Competitiveness: An Analysis of

Competitiveness Indexes

Paper to be presented at DRUID-DIME Academy Winter 2008 PhD Conference on

Geography, Innovation and Industrial Dynamics
January 2008
Sanna Kaisa Seppnen
The Institute of Business Information Management
Tampere University of Technology
P.O. Box 541
FI-33101 Tampere FINLAND
sanna.seppanen@tut.fi

Abstract
Analysing 13 competitiveness and innovation indexes this paper examines the influence of regional
innovation systems on regional competitiveness and how the main elements, operations and features
of regional innovation systems have been taken into account in the indexes. The study shows that
there are many indicators which can be used for the evaluation of regional innovations systems.
However, compared with the literature on regional innovation systems the indexes offer only a
partial picture of the actors, structure and dynamics of regional innovation systems and their
influence on regional competitiveness.

1. Introduction
Global competition and technological development have lead to a change in the success factors of
developed economies. Innovation has become an important determinant of the competitiveness and
success of firms, regions and nations. In addition to the internal factor of firms affecting innovation
the external environment is at least as important (Porter & Stern 2001). Innovation system literature
offers a certain point of view to innovation in society emphasising the interactive nature of
innovation (Edquist 2005). Regional innovation system has an influence on innovation at regional
level and thus it can also be assumed to have an influence on the competitiveness and success of a
region. Also policy and decision makers have recognised the importance of innovation to the
competitiveness of cities, regions and nations and the growing interest can be seen in many
strategies and indexes measuring and illustrating competitiveness at different levels.
The objective of this paper is to evaluate how the main elements, operations and features of regional
innovation systems have been taken into account in various indexes describing competitiveness and
innovation. It is assumed that the components of the indexes are based on certain theoretical
assumptions of competitiveness and that the indexes, their structure and components reflect the
central features of these theoretical assumptions. Thus the components are treated as representatives
of these theories. Based on these assumptions the components are analysed and not the theories and
empirical research on competitiveness. By analysing the components and contents of the indexes
the underlying theoretical assumptions can be made visible. This paper shows how the influence of
regional innovation systems on competitiveness appears in the indexes. This is done by analysing
and classifying the contents of the indexes and comparing the results with the theory on regional
innovation systems found in literature. The theoretical literature on regional innovation systems
serves as a lens through which the indexes are examined. Finally it is argued which aspects are
described in depth and which appear to be the main deficiencies in the indexes.
This paper consists four. The paper starts with a review of the theory of regional innovation systems
which includes the background of the concept, institutional structure, actors, and dynamics and
interaction of regional innovation systems. Chapter three describes the research data, i.e. the
competitiveness and innovation indexes, and method of analysis. In chapter four the results of the

analysis are presented and compared with the theoretical points made earlier in chapter two. The
paper ends with concluding remarks.

2. Review of the theory of regional innovation systems

Innovation in society and more specifically innovation systems have been studied at various levels
and with various scopes. These include e. g. national innovation systems (Lundvall 1992, Nelson
1993), regional innovation systems (Cooke et al. 1997, Howells 1999), sector innovation systems
(Malerba 2002), innovative milieus (Camagni 1991), and technological systems (Carlsson 1995). In
the core of innovation system literature is the view of innovation as an interactive and evolutionary
process. Innovation is not seen as a single and separate event but as a process in which various
organisational actors innovate in interaction (Edquist 2005).
A system of innovation is constituted by elements and relationships which interact in the
production, diffusion and use of new knowledge (Lundvall 1992, p. 2). This knowledge is exploited
for practical, including commercial use (Cooke et al. 1997, p. 478). Thus the knowledge created,
diffused and used is not always in the form of commercial products or services but can have
practical and social effects. More specifically knowledge may take the form of new ideas and
concepts, new skills or competencies, or technological and organisational advances (Schienstock &
Hmlinen 2001, p. 78). An innovation system is a social and dynamic system (Lundvall 1992, p.
2). The system is social because a central activity in the system, learning, is a social activity.
Innovation in the system involves positive feedback and reproduction which makes it a dynamic
system. Thus innovation is not a linear but a recursive process and the system is recursive by nature
(Schienstock & Hmlinen 2001, p. 78).
Institutional structure of a regional innovation system
The agenda for the theoretical development of the regional innovation system approach has been
influenced by different theories. The major contributions to this approach have come from
evolutionary, institutional and regional economics, economics of learning, economics of innovation
and network theory (Doloreux 2002, p. 244). In particular an important foundation of the theory of
regional innovation systems is in the ideas of Lundvall (1992) on national innovation systems.
National innovation systems are identifiable as national economies differ regarding the structure of
the production system and regarding the general institutional set-up and as national innovation
systems reflect these facts. Specifically this is shown in:

Internal organisation of firms

Interfirm relationships
Role of the public sector
Institutional set-up of the financial sector
R&D intensity and R&D organisation
training system (Lundvall 1992, s. 13 & 15)

The elements comprising the institutional structure of a regional innovation system can be
identified. According to Howells (1999) regional innovation systems are readily identifiable and
meaningful from national innovation systems, depending to what extent a nation can be said to have
a homogenous regional structure relating to innovation. The same components as in national
innovation systems exist at regional level and these components can be used for the analysis of
regional innovation systems. Nevertheless, regional innovation system is treated as a separate unit
of analysis because the components of national innovation systems are delivered and responded to
differently at regional level.
Like national innovation systems, regional innovation systems and their characteristics, including
the institutional set-up, evolve through time to be distinctive to that certain region (Cooke et al.
1997, p. 479). The institutional structure evolves in interaction with actors of the system. The
interaction between structure and actors is bidirectional (Howells 1999, p. 78). A region becomes
distinctive as it evolves through time to an institutional repository of a certain negotiated, evolving,
collective social order which establishes, to some extent organisationally, the institutional routines,
norms and values by which actors may come to trust each other collectively (Cooke et al. 1997, p.
480). The institutional structure facilitating innovation includes several elements: industry
specialisation and structure, governance structure and its autonomy including public and private
administrative set-up and intermediating structures, financial system and its autonomy including
finance of activities of firms, R&D and infrastructure, structure of the research and development
functions as a part of knowledge generation, training and competence building system, nonorganisational institutions such as contracts, laws and norms and operational cultural factors
(Howells 1999, Cooke et al. 1997, Autio 1998).
Cooke (2005) emphasises the importance of cultural factors influencing innovation at regional
level. He refers to these as the superstructural issues which are the mentalities among regional
actors or the culture of the region. Culture appears at two levels: institutional and organisational
(for firms and governance) level. He states, that together these help to define the embeddedness of
the region, its institutions, and organisations or the extent to which a social community operates in
terms of shared norms of co-operation, trustful interaction, and untraded interdependencies.
Opposite to these are competitive, individualistic, arms length exchange, and hierarchical norms.
A cooperative culture, associative disposition, learning orientation, and quest for consensus are
typical to a region displaying systemic interactive innovation at both institutional and organisational
levels. Embeddedness enables emergence of a milieu within which the associational networks so
crucial to interactive innovation can become institutionalised (Cooke et al. 1997, p. 489).
Actors of a regional innovation system
The actors of the system innovate in interaction through production, diffusion and application of
new knowledge (Edquist 2005). Autio (1998, p. 133) distinguishes two separate subsystems that
constitute the main building blocks of regional systems of innovation. These are the knowledgeapplication and exploitation sub-system and the knowledge generation and diffusion sub-system.

The former consists mainly, but not exclusively, of industrial companies, while the latter comprises
various, mostly public sector, institutions. There are four interest groups related to industrial
companies that are customers, collaborators, contractors and competitors (Autio 1998) or members
belonging to a supply chain (Cooke et al. 1997) including small, large, industrial and service firms.
The knowledge generation and diffusion sub-group includes four main types of institutions: public
research institutions, educational and more broadly defined skill-development (Cooke et al. 1997)
institutions, workforce mediating institutions, and technology mediating institutions or other
intermediary organisations. Intermediary organisations improve connectedness within a system,
particularly through bridging ties, but they also have a role of creating new possibilities and
dynamism within a system (Howells 2006). Also important actors in a regional innovation system
include public and private funding organisations and non-firm organisations (Cooke et al. 1997).
Although Autio (1998) divides the system into two separate sub-systems he states that the
distinction is a simplifying one and the companies and institutions do carry out activities belonging
to both of the sub-systems. Thus the actors have multiple roles in the system.
Dynamics and interaction of a regional innovation system
Although the regions do display significantly different structures of innovation system components
it is at the level of the internal dynamics of the interaction of firms and organisations and their links
back to the wider institutional structure within the regional system of innovation that is so important
and make regions valuable for study in their own right (Howells 1999, p. 78). Also Autio (1998)
argues that the interaction between agents has not been in the direct focus of the analysis of NISs.
According to Howells (1999) regional innovation systems represent crucial arenas for localised
learning and tacit know-how sharing. The institutional level mentioned earlier is still crucial and
vary significantly between regions, but the regional level includes the informal links between
people and the primary decision making space for firms.
The organisations of a regional innovation system are associative, meaning there is systemic, i.e.
regular, two-way, interchange on matters of importance to innovation (Cooke et al. 1997, p. 484).
The interactions within and between organisations and sub-systems generate the knowledge flows
that drive the evolution of regional system of innovation (Autio 1998, p. 135). Linkages between
key organisations can be specified in terms of flows of knowledge and information, flows of
investment funding, flows of authority and even more informal arrangements such as networks,
clubs, fora and partnerships (Cooke et al. 1997, p. 478).
Learning is a central function in innovation systems and the associative organisations form the
regional learning system that is a part of the regional innovation system (Cooke et al. 1997). The
most important learning processes for innovation are interactive and partially emanate from routine
activities. These include learning-by-doing, learning-by-using and learning-by-interacting, DUImode, or the experience-based mode of learning (Jensen et al. 2007). Encompassing these processes
a regional milieu for continuous learning may emerge, which includes an efficient and embedded
culture of knowledge sharing and circulation (Kautonen 2006, p. 270). Also more deliberate

searching and exploring activities (Lundvall 1992, p. 11) and scanning and invention (Howells
1999, p. 82) take place in innovation systems for expanding the knowledge of actors. This is the
case especially in regional innovation systems that are global research and development nodes
where new knowledge is created in universities and public or private research and development
laboratories (Kautonen 2006, p. 270). This refers to the STI-mode, Science, Technology and
Innovation, of learning based on the production and use of codified scientific and technical
knowledge. Also patterns of communication and knowledge sharing are important processes as a
part of the key dynamic processes fundamental to the micro-foundation of localised innovation
(Howells 1999, p. 82).
A regional innovation system is an open system interacting beyond its boundaries (Schienstock &
Hmlinen 2001) meaning the process of diffusion is bidirectional in nature (Cooke et al. 1997, p.
484). The external influences to a regional system of innovation come from other regional systems
of innovations, from the national innovation system, and from international sources (Autio 1998, p.
135). Also Bathelt et al. (2002) highlight the importance of linkages outside a region for innovation.
They consider that through the trans-local pipelines more information and news about markets and
technologies are pumped into internal networks and the local buzz, consisting of information
such as rumours, gossip and news, learning processes and interpretative schemes, becomes more
dynamic. The extra-local pipelines offer access to valuable information and knowledge created
outside the region or the multiple selection environments that open different possibilities. Thus the
linkages outside the region support its renewal and path-creation and help to avoid lock-in
(Schienstock & Hmlinen 2001).

3. Research data and method of analysis

There is a substantial amount of indexes and reports describing the competitiveness and innovation
performance of nations and regions. In the competitiveness reports and evaluations included in this
paper an index can stand for two things: 1) a single numerical value that combines a number of
quantitative indicators defining the numerical value of the index or 2) a set of indicators of which
no common value is defined. The reports usually include quantitative indicators and qualitative
analysis.
In this paper it is assumed that the indexes and their contents are based on theoretical assumptions
of the factors influencing competitiveness and innovation performance of regions and nations. Thus
the constructors of the indexes have not chosen the indicators of the indexes in an arbitrary fashion.
The indexes, their structure and components reflect the central features of these theoretical
assumptions. Thus the components are treated as representatives of these theories. Based on these
assumptions the components are analysed and not the theories and empirical research on
competitiveness.

Research data: Competitiveness and innovation indexes

The research data comprises 13 indexes. The indexes were sought in literature. The main data
sources were the Internet and various library databases. The data was collected and analysed
between May and August in the year 2006. After the data was collected 13 indexes were selected
from the total number of 28 indexes. 16 indexes were excluded from the analysis since they were
considered irrelevant for reaching the objective of this paper. The aim of the analysis was to gain as
comprehensive picture as possible of the factors considered important to competitiveness and
innovation by the constructors of the indexes. In the selection of the indexes the following criteria
was used: the indexes should aim at illustrating competitiveness or innovation in a comprehensive
way, the aggregate of indexes should illustrate the performance at various geographical levels, and
the aggregate of indexes should include both indexes presented in scientific articles and reports or
guidebooks for policy makers. Table 1. presents a summary of the indexes included in the analysis.

Table 1. The indexes

Name of the index or the
name of the report

Year

Constructor

Focus of evaluation

The European Innovation

Scoreboard

2005

European
Commission

Measuring Regional
Innovation: A Guidebook
for Conducting Regional
Innovation Assessment
Innovation Index

2005

Council on
Competitive
ness

1999

Porter &
Stern

The European
Competitiveness Index

2004

The Huggins
Associates

Innovation, to evaluate and

compare the innovation
performance of the EU Member
States
Innovation, to assess the
regional innovation environment
to help strengthen regional
prosperity
Innovation, a quantitative
benchmark of national
innovation capacity including
international evaluations
Competitiveness, examines and
measures the competitiveness of
Europes regions and nations

Global Competitiveness
Index (GCI)

2006

World
Economic
Forum
(WEF)

Euro-Creativity Index

2004

Florida &
Tinagli

Regional competitiveness:
A comparative study of
eight European regions
Constructing an Index for
Regional Competitiveness

1999

Schienstock

2001

Knowledge and
Innovation Subsidies as
Engines for Growth The
Competitiveness of
Finnish Regions
Science, Technology and
Industry (STI) Scoreboard

Number
of
indicators
26

38

Includes an
index
number
Yes, The
Summary
Innovation
Index
No

Yes, The
Innovation
Index

50

Yes, the
European
Competitive
ness Index
Yes, GCI

Competitiveness, enhancing the

understanding of the key
ingredients of economic growth
and prosperity at international
level
Examines creative class and
competitiveness at international
level
Compares the competitiveness
of eight European regions

90

Huovari,
Kangasharju
& Alanen

An index to measure regional

variation in competitiveness in
Finland

16

2006

Piekkola

Compares the competitiveness

of Finnish NUTS 4-level regions

20

2005

OECD

76

No

ESPON Briefing 2

2006

65

No

The Index of Silicon

Valley

2006

Measures the strength of the

regions economy and the health
of the community

62

No

Technology Barometer
2004

2004

European
Spatial
Planning
Observation
Network
Joint Venture
Silicon
Valley
Network
Naumanen

Explores OECD countries'

performance in the areas of
science, technology,
globalisation and industry
Analyses a variety of European
trends that are important in
relation to the Lisbon Strategy

Measures the state of

technological and scientific
expertise and development in a
given
country

72

Yes, in
separate
themes

Yes, EuroCreativity
Index
Interregional

Yes,
Regional
Competitive
ness Index
Yes,
Competitive
ness index

Three indexes evaluate innovation and the rest competitiveness or other kind of success that,
nevertheless, is considered significant to competitiveness. The indexes evaluate competitiveness
and innovation at different geographical levels. There are six regional and seven national level
indexes. These include both single-case evaluations and comparisons between different regions or
nations. Seven indexes are international comparisons between nations. There are two Finnish
regional comparisons and one international regional comparison. The American indexes are
regional level indexes evaluating one region.
The usefulness of the indexes is justified with rather similar arguments in different index reports. In
general the reports included in the research data are designed for decision-makers and managers.
The indexes serve as information source and analytical tool for supporting of economic or
innovation performance. Strategic decision-making requires a clear understanding of the factors
supporting competitiveness and the state of these factors. The indexes offer an estimate of the state
of the subject under assessment and reveal the challenges and weaknesses but also the potential for
future success. The assessments also offer comparisons between regions or nations or time series of
annual performance of a single region or nation.
For the purpose of reaching the objective set for this paper it was essential to concentrate on the
indexes measuring competitiveness and innovation. As an objective for the selection of the indexes
was to find indexes which comprehensively illustrate competitiveness or innovation, the indexes
describing a single factor of competitiveness were not included in the analysis. For instance,
indexes evaluating corruption, Corruption Perceptions Index (Transparency International 2006), or
sustainable development were not included in the analysis although they are relevant to
competitiveness. Also one internationally acknowledged index report was excluded from the
analysis, The World Competitiveness Yearbook 2006 by IMD (International Institute for
Management Development). Inclusion of that report was impossible due to the schedule and the
resources of this research. Although the indicators of the IMD report were excluded from the
analysis, the titles of the indicator groups were taken into account and thereby the index has
influenced the analysis.
Method of analysis
The indexes were discovered to comprise three main features relevant for the analysis: 1) the title of
an indicator i.e. what an indicator is assumed to measure or illustrate, 2) the content of an indicator
i.e. what an indicator actually measures and illustrates 3) the different elements of a regional
innovation system i.e. how the indicator is related to the elements and features of regional
innovation systems. These three aspects were taken into account in the analysis and classification.
The analysis and classification was conducted in three phases: 1) formation of the main groups,
analyses and classification of the titles into main groups, 2) classification of indicators into main
groups, analyses and classification of the indicators into the main groups and 3) formation of the
sub-groups, classification of the indicators into sub-groups according to their content. The analysis

started with classification of the titles. A general definition of innovation systems and their elements
by Lundvall (1992, p. 13) was used as a starting-point for the classification. The titles were grouped
according to the definition and new groups were formed for the titles which did not fit by their
content into previous groups. After classification of the titles the indicators were analysed and
placed into the main groups according to their content. After placing all the indicators in the main
groups the sub-groups were formed. The sub-groups and their title names were based solely on the
contents of the indicators and at this point no theoretical literature was used as a guideline or basis
of the analysis. All indicators are a part of only one sub-group.

4. Results of analysis
As a result of the analysis 11 main groups and their sub-groups which represent the contents of the
indexes were formed. The groups are

Human capital
Innovation
Private sector
Public sector
Research and development
Finance
Interaction
Attitudes and values
Infrastructure
Economic performance and
Environment and health.

The contents of the indexes are summarized in a table in the Appendix. The analysis shows how the
main elements, operations and features of regional innovation systems have been taken into account
in various indexes describing competitiveness and innovation. This is done by analysing and
classifying the contents of the indexes and comparing the results with the theory on regional
innovation systems presented earlier in chapter 2.
Human capital
The first group is Human capital. This group includes indicators which on the grounds of the titles
aim at describing human capital, general competence and talent in society, inputs of innovation
activity and economic success, human resources, talent, knowledge and capability. The aspects
under evaluation are mostly inputs and resources and not outputs. Indicators do not evaluate process
but potential which human capital enables. In innovation systems competence and human capital as
a whole are important resources. Information, competence, ideas, capabilities, skills and
technologies flow in innovation systems and actors use them for innovation. Thus it is important to
evaluate human capital and the institutional structure and actors which comprise the educational

10

system and competence developers when describing innovation systems. In the indexes related to
human capital two areas are evaluated: education and employees.
Education is evaluated with the number of Students and Graduates and the Quality of education. In
addition there are indicators which do not fit into these subgroups and they comprise subgroup
Others. Students are evaluated with the number of students but also with the number of more
specifically defined groups of students, such as technical, primary, secondary, tertiary and
vocational students and extent of algebra enrolment. According to the titles the indicators aim at
describing human capital, education preparing for economic success and quantity of education. The
other subgroup measuring education is Graduates which describes the level of education. This
subgroup includes indicators which measure the amount of different degrees, staff training and lifelong learning. There are indicators measuring degrees in general, upper secondary degrees, bachelor
degrees, tertiary degrees, science and technology graduates and PhDs, flows of university graduates
and different university graduates. Thus the type of the degree varies and in some indexes it is
defined quite strictly which degrees are important as to others it is enough to evaluate the amount of
degree son general level. According to the titles the amount of degrees represents knowledge
innovation drivers, inputs and competence.
The indicators in the subgroup Graduates concentrate on evaluating the amount of official degrees
while learning and knowledge is much more than degrees. It could be argued that degrees represent
the readiness of individuals in a region to learn and act in specific duties. For an innovation system
it is important that all its actors are competent and learning is continuous. Thus it would be relevant
to evaluate the degree of competence more extensively and in more detail by actor groups. It would
be important to demonstrate what kind of competence, knowledge and capability the actors need to
operate in an innovation system. The general amount of degrees does not necessarily reveal the
relation between the competence level and the demand for competence.
The Quality of education is measured especially with elementary school and early education
indicators which evaluate ability to read, mathematical skills and competence in natural science. In
addition the general quality of education, educational system and management schools are
evaluated. These indicators evaluate if the education of a certain competence area meets the needs
posed on the system. The educational system and competence developers are a part of a regional
innovation system. However, there are few indicators describing the quality of education and the
overall system and the indicators mostly evaluate the basic skills that form the basis for expertise
and learning. Other indicators measuring education were: Spending on education, mobility of
doctoral students and local availability of research and training services of which the last one
describes the competence developers in the area.
The second subgroup of Human capital is Employees which is divided into five subgroups:
Research and development, Employment in manufacturing, Employment in services, Employment in
science and technology and Others. Concerning research and development the general number of
employees, private sector, public sector and high education sector employees are measured.

11

According to the titles these indicators aim at describing human resources in science and
technology, creativity and the state of knowledge economy. Employment in manufacturing is
measured with the number of employees in medium-high and high-tech manufacturing, computer
manufacturing and machinery and equipment manufacturing. These aim at describing application of
innovation output and the state of knowledge economy. Services are measured with employment in
high-tech, ICT services and the whole service sector. These evaluate the same themes as in
manufacturing but also the restructuring potential and science and technology capabilities. The
subgroup Science and technology includes indicators such as researchers in scientific disciplines,
employment in science and technology intensive industry and the general employment in science
and technology. These aim at evaluating the state and the enablers of a knowledge economy and
society. The subgroup Others includes indicators which evaluate the division of labour in different
competence fields on different grounds such as profession or the creativity of a profession. In
addition there are many indicators measuring and evaluating population, its size, diversity according
to age and ethnical background, density and mobility.
Indicators which measure employment clearly aim at describing the level of competence but also
the phase/stage of development of a society which for example is the goal when measuring services.
Employment indicators are important for the evaluation of innovation systems as it is important to
know what kind of actors exist in the innovation system. The employment in different parts of
manufacturing aim to indicate in an interesting way how knowledge and information produced
through innovation is applied in an innovation system. It could also indicate the areas of expertise
which exist in an innovation system and thus the application of information produced inside or
outside the system. There is a clear idea that the effect of successful innovations can be seen in the
number of produced goods and services and thus in the number of employees in a particular field. A
big share of employees in a particular field tells a story/indicates that something is done right but it
does not tell the rate of innovation in the firms or the amount of innovations actually produced. The
indicators do not reveal which part of the number of employees is due to innovation and new
products and services as firms can succeed with other means than just innovation. Employment is
measured on a general level or the industries producing physical goods. Thus product innovations
are valued higher than service or process innovations. It could be contested if the industry the firms
operate in directly indicates the competence areas the firms innovate in. For example a company
producing physical goods could gain its competitive edge from its competence in logistics.
Traditionally the number of employees is used for describing the structure of economy. The titles
indicate that by describing the structure of economy it is possible to get information of the level of
competence, competence needs and the producers of competence. On the basis of the indicators new
knowledge is created by employees in research and development activities and in science and
technology professions. However, various actors in a regional innovation system take part in the
production of information which is used for innovation (Autio 1998). Thus the indicators offer a
rather narrow and science-based picture of the producers of knowledge. In addition, a big problem
with the indicators is that they are all quantitative. Quantity is measured in a very detailed manner
although this does not reveal the quality or level of competence. On the basis of the indicators it is

12

possible to tell that in a specific region there is a high agglomeration of employees in a particular
field of expertise. However, it is not clear how well the competence offered meets the needs of the
employers. To uncover this there is a need for indicators describing interaction.
Innovation
The second group is formed of indicators describing innovation. The indicators related to
innovation describe innovation performance, innovativeness and creativity. On the other hand some
indexes use indicators of innovation for describing innovation as an activity or operation. In the
indexes innovation activity is knowledge production, understanding and management,
commercialisation and protection, application or production of ideas. The indicators related to
innovation can also describe property or possession such as intellectual property which describes
the output of innovation activity. Thus innovation is evaluated from three perspectives which are all
important when evaluating innovation systems. The group was divided into four subgroups. These
are Patents, Other forms of innovation, International activity related to innovation and Innovation
in enterprises.
The subgroup Patents is divided into four subgroups which are General patents, European patents,
USA patents and Patent type. The indicators in the subgroup General patents measure the amount
of patents, geographical concentration or intensity of patents. The subgroup European patents
includes the amount of patents and patent applications to European Patent Office (EPO) and US
patents include patents or patent applications to the United States Patent Office (USPTO). The
indicators in the subgroup Patent type describe the industry or scientific field to which patents
belong to. According to the titles patents reveal the output of innovation, innovativeness and
intellectual property and its protection.
The subgroup Other forms of innovation includes indicators which aim at illustrating other outputs
of innovation activity than patents. These other forms are products, services, processes,
technologies, organisational forms and management practises, trademarks, designs and scientific
articles that are new to firms or markets. In addition innovation is evaluated with the amount of new
firms, gazelles, fastest growing firms and value added. The titles indicate that indicators describe
production of new knowledge, diffusion and application, innovation society, outputs of innovation
activity and their protection.
Compared to the indicators in the subgroup Other forms of innovation patents are used more often
for the evaluation of the results of innovation activity. Only two indexes analysed in this paper did
not include indicators measuring patents. There were also four indexes which did not use any other
indicators besides patents for evaluating the results of innovation activity.
For the evaluation of a regional innovation system it is crucial to assess the results and output of the
system. On the basis of the titles indicators in the group Innovation measure factors relevant to
regional innovation systems such as knowledge production, understanding and management,

13

commercialisation and protection, application or production of ideas. These illustrate the main
functions of an innovation system: production, diffusion and application of new knowledge
(Lundvall 1992). However, by using just the amount of patents to indicate innovativeness only a
very narrow picture can be drawn. Patents are good in describing protected intellectual property.
Yet, there are many forms of innovation outputs which cannot be protected or are not sensible to be
protected with patents. There is also a risk of excessive attention being paid on technological
innovations at the expense of other forms of innovation.
International activity related to innovation includes indicators such as foreign ownership of
domestic inventions or domestic ownership of foreign inventions. In addition, there are indicators
measuring foreign patents and international cooperation in innovation activity. These thrive at
describing protection, commercialisation and generally the results of innovation. For the renewal of
a regional innovation system it is important that actors have linkages outside the region. If the actor
do not attain new information from outside the region there is a danger of a lock-in (Bathelt et al.
2002). Thus the international aspects of innovation activity are important when evaluating
innovation systems.
The last subgroup is Innovation in enterprises. This subgroup includes indicators which measure
innovative enterprises and their cooperation, patents by a sector or a cluster, ways to obtain
technology and small and medium sized firms that receive funding for innovation. The titles suggest
that the indicators in this subgroup describe innovativeness, entrepreneurship and production,
diffusion, understanding and management of information. As firms have a central position in
innovation systems the evaluation of their innovation activity, how they finance innovation, and
how they obtain technology they are using are essential when evaluating the whole innovation
system.
Private sector
The group Private sector includes the largest number of indicators of all the groups. The indicators
are also rather versatile. Private sector actors are important producers of economic well-being and
different firms, industrial companies, customers, collaborators, contractors and competitors (Autio
1998) or members belonging to a supply chain (Cooke et al. 1997) including small, large, industrial
and service firms, are central actors in regional innovation systems. This group is divided into two
subgroups: Enterprises and Productivity and Economic performance. Enterprises subgroup is
further divided into five subgroups which are Specialisation of enterprises, Operations and
strategy, Employment, and Technology acquisition.
Specialisation of enterprises subgroup includes indicators which describe the type of business and
how different sectors are in connection with one another. The indicators describe the size and type
of enterprises, clusters and sectors. There is also an indicator measuring the number of decision
making functions. According to the titles the indicators aim at describing business sophistication
and the knowledge society and economy. The indicators in the subgroup Specialisation of

14

enterprises are important when describing innovation systems. They extensively describe the
production structure as a part of the institutional structure of a regional innovation system.
The indicators in the subgroup Operations and strategy are mostly from the Global
Competitiveness Index 2006. These indicators illustrate the internal operation and strategies and
sources of competitive edge of firms. According to the titles the indicators in this subgroup
represent business sophistication and thus the overall sophistication of the whole economy. The
strategies and operations of firms and of other actors in an innovation system affect innovation.
These indicators also offer an interesting possibility to examine the interaction and networks of
actors, such as hierarchies, the decision-makers power or authority the efficiency of decision
making and the standards of how to communicate and act in the system.
The Employment subgroup contains indicators which measure the number of employees in different
sectors in production and services. According to the titles this subgroup illustrates both the results
and inputs of production processes. On one hand employees are inputs which bring their
competence and creativity to the production process and also to the innovation process. On the other
hand the number of employees in a particular sector illustrates the strength of that particular sector
and thus the results of the economy and its features. The employment rate in high-tech production is
assumed to represent the strength of a knowledge society or a knowledge economy. Or the extent to
which economical activity is based on creativity and application of inventions. These indicators
contain problems similar to those of the quantitative indicators describing employment in the group
Human Capital. They do not show if the inputs are of high quality. It is assumed in the indexes that
in the end the economic success of a nation or region indicates the quality of inputs, in this case
employees. According to the titles the employment figures also illustrate the output of the system. It
is evident that in the indexes the goal of the innovation activity is high employment and strong
economic activity especially in high-tech industries.
The subgroup Technology acquisition illustrates the ways with which new technology is obtained.
According to the titles the indicators in this subgroup are connected to innovation in enterprises.
Technology acts as an enabler of operations and as a result of production. Thus it may be an input
or an output depending on the situation. Regarding the evaluation of innovation system it is
important to evaluate production of new technology because technological information is a part of
the information flows in regional innovation systems. In the indexes production of new technology
indicates the development stage of a society or the success of an economy based on information or
knowledge. The last subgroup Economic performance and productivity includes basic economic
indicators such as sector productivity, wages, growth and bankruptcy. Economic performance
illustrates the outputs of an innovation system.
Public sector
The group Public sector includes four subgroups which are Investments and productivity,
Employment, Institutions and Operations and regulations. The indicators included in the subgroup

15

Investments and productivity measure public funding for research and development, enterprises
receiving public funding, public sector productivity, technology procurement and wastefulness of
public spending. The Employment indicators measure employment in research and development,
government, administration, education, health and social work. Both subgroups are linked to
innovation activities and creativity, especially to research and development resources. The number
of employees also reveals the relative significance of certain operations in the public sector. The use
of public resources is connected to the efficiency of the public sector.
Different public sector actors are a part of a regional innovation system. The indicators illustrate the
public sector actors to a large degree as enablers of innovation as they fund research and
development. According to the indicators public sector can also take part in the creation of new
knowledge which is evaluated with employment indicators in research and development.
The indicators related to Institutions include: the number of decision making functions and
agglomeration of administration and also trust in public institutions. These indicators express the
administrative significance of a region. According to the titles trust in public institutions impacts
understanding and management of knowledge. Trust is a part of the cultural elements in innovation
systems and its significance for successful interaction is important (Cooke et al. 1997). Thus
evaluation of trust is relevant for the assessment of innovation systems. The biggest subgroup of
Public sector is Operations and regulations. This subgroup includes indicators which assess the
efficiency of regulations and laws especially in protecting intellectual property. The subgroup also
includes indicators evaluating cost of doing business, taxes, crime and corruption and trust in
politicians. According to the titles these indicators describe the efficiency of markets and public
institutions and the ethics and principles of public government and institutions.
In an innovation system public government has an important task of developing regulations and
making laws which promote innovation. The public organisations influence on their part the cultural
factors in a regional innovation system. Ethics and corruption are a part of the cultural factors that
affect innovation. Thus the indicators in the subgroup Operations and regulations are important
when evaluating an innovation system. The legislative environment in a nation is usually quite
coherent and the decision making power is centralised. Nevertheless, this feature may vary between
regions and nations. When evaluating the influence of legislative actions on innovation it is
important to know at which level the evaluation is done and at which level laws and regulations
actually are made. Nevertheless, there are much fewer indicators for the evaluation of public sector
compared to private sector indicators in the indexes. While constructing the indexes the multiple
and diverse roles of public sector in innovation have not been properly taken into account. Public
sector is not only an element influencing laws and regulations but an active actor which
continuously and by various means is a part of innovation.
Research and development

16

Research and development is an abundantly evaluated aspect in the indexes and the indicators
concerning research and development were to a large degree similar to one another. There were
indicators which were at the same time in four to six indexes. However, there were also indicators
which could only be found in a single index. This group contains three subgroups: Resources,
Employment and Type of research and development.
The Resources subgroup includes subgroups: General resources, Public sector resources and
financial expenditures in general, ratio of public and private expenditures and trends in expenditures
on research and development. Public sector resources include indicators which measure public and
higher education expenditure on research and development. The indicators included in the subgroup
Private sector resources measure expenditures at a general level, expenditures on high-tech
research and development and changes in research and development budgets and personnel. The
titles indicate that research and development is strongly connected to innovation. Expenditures on
research and development represent in many indexes the resources allocated to the creation of new
knowledge and ideas. Resources can also represent relations between actors if resources are
allocated from one actor to another.
Second subgroup is Employment and it includes three subgroups: General, Public sector and
Private sector employment. These measure employment in research and development and also the
number of researchers. In the Public sector subgroup there are also indicators measuring white
collar workers in research and development. According to the titles the indicators of this subgroup
illustrate as, in the group Human capital, human capital, talent and creativity.
The third subgroup, Type of research and development, includes indicators which evaluate research
and development activities according to firm size and sector, amount of research institutions,
quality of research institutions, taxation and internationality of research and development.
According to the titles these indicators are also related to innovation and to knowledge economy
and society.
The Research and development indicators concentrate on quantity. Financial inputs and diverse
employment figures aim at illustrating the resources allocated to innovation. They are resources that
are expected to lead to innovation. The employment figures are also expected to offer information
on the competence level and talent of a region or nation although the indicators are quantitative.
There is only one qualitative indicator which describes the quality of research institutions. Financial
resources are essential enablers of innovation. Financial resources indicate if research and
development is valued in a society but it gives little information on research and development
activities in reality and their quality. Research and development by a sector and by firm size
illustrates what kind of firms in innovation systems take part in research and development activities.
The internationality of research institutes describes their international linkages which are important
when creating new knowledge (Autio 1997). However, knowledge is created in other parts of firms
and the whole society in addition to research and development units and organisations through
learning by using, doing and interacting (Jensen et al. 2007, Kautonen 2006). Thus the financial

17

and human resources allocated directly or indirectly to knowledge creation should be evaluated
more extensively. Concentrating solely on research and development leads easily to a situation
where the science and technology based view is over-emphasized when evaluating creation of new
knowledge and innovation.
Finance
The group Finance is divided into two subgroups: Venture capital and Other investments. The
indicators in the subgroup Venture capital measure venture capital investments, their availability,
venture capital at an early-stage, companies offering venture capital, business angels and venture
capital in different industries. According to the titles venture capital is an input or a resource which
enables or makes creation and diffusion of knowledge and innovation possible. It also makes
entrepreneurship and renewal of firms possible as it enables the use of new knowledge for starting
and developing business.
The second subgroup is Other investments. It includes indicators which measure the efficiency of
financial markets, investments in high technology and foreign direct investment flows. In addition,
the indicators evaluate the soundness of banks and ease of access to loans. According to the titles
these indicators illustrate the overall efficiency of the financial market and the possibilities for firm
renewal. Foreign direct investments also increase the flow of information in a region and
investments are also being used as an indicator for interaction between actors.
In a regional innovation system financiers are important enablers of the creation of new knowledge
and innovation. It is also evident in the indexes that venture capital and the financial system are
important elements to be measured as a part of evaluation of innovation systems. It is important to
evaluate financial system as a whole, its efficiency and also the ability of venture capital to support
innovation.
Interaction
As mentioned in the description of the previous group, investment flows are used as a measure for
interaction between different actors of an innovation system. Also in the group Interaction a part of
the indicators illustrate financial cooperation. The group includes two subgroups: National and
regional cooperation and International cooperation.
The first group is divided into three subgroups which are University-Business, Public governmentBusiness and Business to business cooperation. University-business relations are measured with the
amount of investments and research collaboration. Government-business relations are described
with indicators which measure public funding for innovation, technology grants and research and
development linkages. The indicators describing relations between businesses are vary more than
indicators in the subgroups University-Business and Government-Business. The subgroup includes
indicators such as innovative SMEs cooperating with others, value and management of network

18

ties, cooperation in value chain, the interdependence of services and manufacturing and cooperation
in innovative companies. According to the titles cooperation is related to innovation through the
creation, sharing and application of new knowledge. They illustrate business sophistication and
business networks. Relations are seen as resources which are needed for creation, diffusion and
application of knowledge in innovation.
The group International cooperation includes three subgroups: Trade, Investments and Ownership
and Others. The indicators in the subgroup Trade measure foreign trade, foreign trade of high-tech
products, openness to foreign trade and barriers and competition in foreign trade. The subgroup
Investments and ownership includes indicators such as investments to and from abroad, foreign
ownership and restriction to foreign ownership, foreign investments to research and development
and activity of foreign companies. The subgroup Others includes individual indicators such as
trends in international trade and investment flows, contribution of multinationals to productivity
growth and international cooperation in patenting activity.
The titles show that international relations have multiple meanings related to competitiveness and
innovation. International trade indicates the size of the economy and the intensity of competition.
Regulations and barriers affect the efficiency of the economy. International relations also indicate
the development stage of an economy and society and thus the infrastructure and its quality which
supports innovation. According to the titles international relations are essential to innovation
because they enable networking and the flow and application of information. Through international
relations a country or a region acquires new information and technology and may be a part of the
progress in technological development. The international relations also increase the readiness of a
region to create new technology. In addition, international relations indicate the accessibility of a
region.
The actors of a regional innovation system use cooperative relations and networks as resources to
perform their functions in the system. Innovation is an interactive process in innovation systems as
noted in the findings on regional innovation system literature. Thus interaction and cooperative
relations are central when evaluating a regional innovation system. In the indexes relations between
actors are considered important. Relations also appear in the indexes as resources or inputs which
enable networking and the flow of information in and into an innovation system. Many indicators
which evaluate cooperative relations measure financial investments. However, there is also a lot of
interaction between the actors of an innovation system which is not supported with any official
funding which is often informal. Thus evaluating interaction only with the amount of financial
resources exchanged does not portray a complete picture of interaction in a regional innovation
system. Research collaboration illustrates the interaction in the science based view of knowledge
creation. However, knowledge is created, diffused and utilised in interaction which is not science
based and to illustrate that interaction new indicators are needed.
It is also worth noting that there are various actors interacting in an innovation system, although
there are only three actors, universities, public government and private sector, present in the indexes

19

analysed for this paper. Thus the functions and interaction of the other actors should also be
evaluated in order to assess an innovation system more comprehensively. Although new knowledge
is created, diffused and utilised in informal networks, forums and arenas (Cooke et al. 1997) there
are no indicators in the indexes evaluating these forms of interaction. This is a clear deficiency in
the indexes. They do not take into account the different ways of creating, using and diffusing
knowledge in a comprehensive way. The quality of interaction is evaluated only in business to
business relations, and not in business to university tai business to government relations, although it
is rather obvious that mere amount of interaction and amount of cooperation does not reveal the
benefits of these relations. On the contrary, when evaluating relations and interaction their
significance and quality should also be taken into account. The interactive linkages that the actors in
a regional innovation system have outside the system have their own significance for innovation.
The linkages outside the system bring new knowledge to the system and thus support the renewal of
the system. Also the titles of the indicators support this view. It is essential for the evaluation of the
system to assess the linkages outside the system. The interaction inside and outside the system
should be evaluated in parallel as they are considered to reinforce and support each other (Camagni
et al. 1995).
Attitudes and values
The group Attitudes and values includes two subgroups: Attitudes and Values. According to the
titles Values illustrate values in the society and firms. This means the things considered valuable in
a society and tolerance towards different things. For example these indicators evaluate equality, the
value system and its secularity, possibilities for self-expression and violence. Valuation of art and
different worker groups also indicate the values of a society. According to the titles Attitudes
illustrate the prevailing attitudes towards minorities, different world-views, backgrounds and
entrepreneurship. The group Attitudes and values contains the smallest amount of indicators of all
the groups although the values of a society ultimately guide the decision made and behaviour of
people. In the regional innovation system literature culture is considered to impacts innovation.
Attitudes and values are a part of the cultural factors of an innovation system and thus it is
important to evaluate them. However, there is only a limited amount of indicators available and
they usually measure the general values or the value system of a society. In the context of regional
innovation systems it is essential to assess the actors trust and eagerness to cooperate and learn
(Cooke et al. 1997) Therefore there is a clear need for indicators (qualitative) targeted at measuring
the features of innovation systems.
Infrastructure
The group Infrastructure includes three subgroups: Information and communication technology,
Accessibility and Physical infrastructure. The subgroup Information and communication technology
includes indicators which measure communication networks, broadband subscribers, Internet usage,
telephone lines and communication costs for inhabitants. Information and communication

20

technology is viewed as an enabler of an information society and in one index this technology
belongs to innovation drivers. It also illustrates the readiness to utilise technology in a society.
The indicators included in the subgroup Accessibility describe transportation infrastructure,
motorways, air accessibility, seaport connectivity and housing near transit. According to the titles
these illustrate accessibility, connections, land use and significance of the region. Transportation
infrastructure is also an enabler of a knowledge society. The subgroup Physical infrastructure
includes indicators: housing affordability, availability of commercial space, the overall quality of
infrastructure and number of vehicles.
Infrastructure is a basis on which economic activity and the life of inhabitants is built. Thus it is one
of the basic factors affecting competitiveness in indexes that measure competitiveness. Information
and communication technology, physical infrastructure and accessibility are not directly linked to
innovation but they influence innovation in the background as enablers of communication.
Accessibility is a prerequisite for building linkages outside the innovation system as effective
interaction often requires face to face interaction. Also the autonomy to finance communication
infrastructure is considered important to innovation at regional level (Cooke et al. 1997).
Economic performance
The indicators in the group Economic performance illustrate the state of a regional or a national
economy. The indicators in this group are divided into four subgroups: Gross domestic product
(GDP), Employment and unemployment, Productivity and Income and poverty. The indicators in the
subgroup Gross domestic product illustrate the amount of and the changes in GDP. These indicators
are basic competitiveness indicators that illustrate the state and development of an economy.
The subgroup Employment and unemployment includes two kinds of indicators according to its
name. Employment is measured with jobs and job growth, employment rate, older workers, cluster
and sector specific employment. According to the titles these illustrate the output or the results of
economic and innovation activity. They describe economy, prosperity, the restructuring potential
and value base of a society. Unemployment is measured with unemployment rate, long term
unemployment, unemployment of young people and development of unemployment. According to
the titles these indicators illustrate the same as the previous indicators measuring employment. In
addition, they illustrate the state of the labour market which is considered as an important factor to
competitiveness of a region or nation.
The Productivity indicators measure productivity rate and growth. They also assess growth of
income and labour productivity. Productivity is an important performance indicator in the indexes.
In one index it is assumed to illustrate the impact of knowledge on productive activities. The
subgroup Income and poverty includes subsequent indicators: average wage and changes in it, per
capita and mean household income, comparative price level, poverty rate and costs of living. In this
subgroup ethnicity is taken into account in some indexes when presenting the results. These

21

indicators illustrate economic performance and its effects in a concrete way on individual level.
They illustrate the value base, prosperity and income and quality of life. These are the outputs or
results of economic activity and innovation and. They also illustrate the performance of an
economy.
From the view point of regional innovation systems measuring performance is important. Economic
performance is a part of the overall performance an the indicators mentioned above fit well when
describing the economic performance of a regional innovation system. Nevertheless, it is important
to notice that economic performance is not the only goal when developing and measuring
competitiveness or innovation systems. Economic capital does not substitute for human resources or
the dynamics and culture of regional innovation systems that are essential for innovation.
Environment and Health
The last group of indicators presented in this paper is called Environment and health. The group is
divided into two subgroups accordingly. The indicators in the subgroup Environment assess the
resources allocated to the protection of environment, energy consumption and share of renewable
energy sources, quality of air and water, ecological diversity, emissions of greenhouse gasses and
protected areas. These indicators illustrate sustainable development and environmental
responsibility. The indicators related to Health illustrate immunisation of children, overweight of
youth, infant mortality, life expectancy, the overall health of the population, various diseases and
their impact on business. These illustrate the state of the society and its value base.
Environment and health of people are fundamental factors affecting innovation in a society. The
indicators measuring these factors illustrate the performance of a regional innovation system and
economic activity and also the values of the society. Actors in innovation systems are organisations
in which people work and innovate. Thus the health of people and their capacity to work also has an
impact on innovation. The individual level is not usually in the focus in the innovation system
literature. Nor is the natural environment mentioned as an important factor. Thus the indicators in
this group are optional when assessing innovation system although it is important to take into
account the context, i.e. the nation or the region where the innovation system is situated or the
overall operational environment.

5. Conclusions
There are many useful indicators in the indexes analysed for this paper for the evaluation of
regional innovation system. Nine of the groups of indicators are in central position when evaluating
regional innovation system. These are Human capital, Innovation, Private sector, Public sector,
Research and development, Finance, Interaction, Attitudes and values and Economic performance.
Of course not all the indicators included in the nine groups are equally relevant when illustrating the
influence of regional innovation systems on regional competitiveness. The remaining two:
Infrastructure and Environment and health are in indirect interaction with regional innovation

22

systems. The incorporation of some of the indicators included in these two groups depends on the
definition of regional innovation system, the context i.e. the region, and what is considered as
relevant output of the system. For example if the influence innovation systems have on climate
change is considered an important subject, indicators describing this influence should be included in
the index as part of the group Environment and health designed for illustrating a regional innovation
system.
In any case, it is possible to evaluate the influence regional innovation systems have on regional
competitiveness with the indicators included in the indexes. The groups include all the focal actors
of a regional innovation system except intermediary organisations. Some actors and parts of the
institutional structure are emphasised more than others. For example the indicators evaluating
private sector are diverse in contrast to the indicators related to public sector. Many of the indexes
were illustrating national level features and thus it is understandable that there are no indicators
describing intermediary organisations although they have diverse roles in innovation.
The influence of regional innovation systems on regional competitiveness presented in the indexes
can be described as follows: the actors in the system utilise scientific and research and development
related knowledge for the production of patents and product innovations which are used by firms
for the production of economic capital. Public government acts as a regulator of innovation activity
and as a financier with private sector financiers.
Although the indexes describe quite extensively the main actors and structure of a regional
innovation system many important aspects of regional innovation systems get no or little attention
in the indexes. For example the cultural factors such as the eagerness of the actors to learn and
interact (Cooke et al. 1997) are excluded from the indexes. The processes of continuous learning
such as learning by doing, using and interacting (Jensen et al. 2007, Kautonen 2006), as a source of
innovation and as a basis for the creation of scientific knowledge are not taken into account in the
indexes. Also the different types of innovation outputs: process, service and also social innovations
do not get much attention. The different roles of the actors of a regional innovation system are not
present in the indexes. The indexes view on the roles of the actors is quite directly consistent with
the simplifying model of regional innovation system consisting of two sub-systems (Autio 1998).
The producers and appliers of knowledge are separate. Compared with the literature on regional
innovation systems the indexes offer only a partial picture of the actors, structure and dynamics of
regional innovation systems and their influence on regional competitiveness.
The indexes accentuate and hide. They are not innocent but they reveal what is valued. The indexes
are an information source for decision makers in public and private sector of the factors that are
considered important. If the missing aspects were taken into account, the indexes would provide a
more comprehensive picture of the state of regional innovation systems and the factors influencing
regional competitiveness. Thus it would positively contribute to the quality of information available
for decision makers.

23

References
Autio, E. 1998. Evaluation of RTD in regional system of innovation. European Planning Studies.
Vol. 6, No. 2. pp. 131-140.
Bathelt. H. Malmberg, A. & Maskell, P. 2002. Clusters and knowledge: Local Buzz, Global
Pipelines and The Process of Knowledge Creation. DRUID Working Paper No 02-12.
Camagni, R. P. 1995. The concept of innovative milieu and its relevance for public policies in
European lagging regions. Papers in Regional Science. Vol. 74, no. 4. ss. 317-340.
Carlsson, B. (Ed.) 1995. Technological Systems and Economic Performance The Case of Factory
Automation, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, Dordrecht, London.
Cooke, P. Uranga, M. G. & Etxebarria, G. (1997). Regional innovation systems: Institutional and
organisational dimensions. Research Policy. Vol. 26, Issues 4-5. 475-491.
Cooke, P. 2005. Regional Knowledge Capabilities and Open Innovation: Regional Innovation
systems and Clusters in the Asymmetric Knowledge Economy. in Breschi, S. and Malerba.
F. (eds). Clusters, Networks and Innovation, Oxford University Press.
Council on Competitiveness. 2005. Measuring Regional Innovation: A Guidebook for Conducting
Regional Innovation Assessments. URL: http://www.compete.org/pdf/126956_12-15.pdf.
Doloreux, D. 2002. What we should know about regional systems of innovation. Technology in
Society. Vol. 24. pp. 243-263.
Edquist, C. 2005. Systems of innovation. ss. 181-208. Teoksessa Fagerberg, J. Mowery, D.C. &
Nelson, R. R. (ed.) 2005. The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford, Oxford University
Press. 656 s.
ESPON. 2006. ESPON Briefing 2 Mapping regional competitiveness and cohesion. URL:
http://www.espon.lu/online/documentation/programme/publications/3947/esponbriefing2.pdf.
European Innovation Scoreboard. 2005. European Innovation Scoreboard 2005. URL:
http://trendchart.cordis.lu/scoreboards/scoreboard2005/index.cfm.
Florida, R. & Tinagli, I. 2004. Europe in the creative age 2004. URL:
http://www.creativeclass.org/acrobat/Europe_in_the_Creative_Age_2004.pdf.
Howells, J. 1999. Regional innovation systems? pp. 67-93. Teoksessa: Archibugi, D. Howells, J. &
Michie, J. 1999. Innovation Policy in a Global Economy. Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press. 278 s.
Howells, J. 2006. Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, Vol.
35, Issue 5. pp. 715-728.
Huovari, J. Kangasharju, A. Alanen, A. 2001. Constructing an Index for Regional Competitiveness.
Pellervo Economic Research Institute. Working Papers, N:o 44.

24

IMD. 2006. The world competitiveness yearbook. Lausanne, IMD.

Jensen, M. B. Johnson, B. Lorenz, E. & Lundvall, B-. 2007. Forms of knowledge and modes of
innovation. Research Policy, Vol. 36, Issue 5, pp. 680-693.
Joint Venture Silicon Valley Network. 2006. Index of Silicon Valley 2006. URL:
http://www.jointventure.org/PDF/Index 2006.pdf.
Kautonen, M. (2006). Regional Innovation System Bottom-up: A Finnish Perspective. A FirmLevel Study with Theoretical and Methodological Reflections. Acta Universitatis
Tamperensis 1167, Tampere University Press, Tampere.
Lundvall, B-. (1992). National systems of innovation: towards a theory of innovation and
interactive learning. Pinter, London.
Malerba, F. 2002. Sectoral systems of innovation and production. Research Policy. Vol. 31, Issue
2. ss. 247-264.
Naumanen, M. 2004. Technology Barometer 2004. Helsinki, The Finnish Association of Graduate
Engineers TEK.
Nelson, R. R. 1993. National Innovation System. A Comparative Study. Oxford, Oxford University
Press. 541 s.
OECD. 2005. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2005. URL:
http://www.oecd.org/document/43/0,2340,en_2649_33703_35455595_1_1_1_1,00.html.
Piekkola, H. 2006. Knowledge and Innovation Subsidies as Engines for Growth: The
Competitiveness of Finnish Regions. Helsinki, Elinkeinoelmn tutkimuslaitos.
Porter, M. E. & Stern, S. 1999. The New Challenge to Americas Prosperity: Findings from the
Innovation Index. Washington, Council of Competitiveness. 94 s.
Porter, M. E. & Stern, S. 2001. Innovation: Location Matters. MIT Sloan Management Review.
Vol. 42, Issue 4. pp. 28-36.
Robert Huggins Associates. 2004. The European Competitiveness Index. Pontypridd, Robert
Huggins Associates.
Schienstock, G. 1999. Regional competitiveness: A comparative study of eight European regions
1999. Paper presented at the Danish Research Unit for Industrial Dynamics (DRUID)
Summer Conference on National Innovation Systems, Industrial Dynamics and Innovation
Policy June 1999.
Schienstock, G. & Hmlinen, T. 2001. Transformation of the Finnish innovation system: A
network Approach. Helsinki, Sitra.
Transparency International. 2006. TI Corruption Perceptions Index. URL:
http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/global/cpi.

25

World Economic Forum. 2006. The Global Competitiveness Report 2006-2007. Basingstoke,
Palgrave Macmillan.

26

Appendix: Contents of the indexes

Group:
1 Human Capital
Education
Students
Graduates
Quality of education
Others
Employees
Research and development
Manufacturing
Services
Science and technologies
Others

EIS

ECI (H)

RIA

STIS

RCI

TB

GCI

ECI (F&T)

ES

II

ISV

CI

RC

x
x
x

x
x
x

x
x
x
x
x

x
x
x

x
x
x
x
x

x
x

x
x

x
x

x
x
x

x
x
x
x
x

x
x

x
x
x

x
x

x
x
x

x
x

x
x
x
x

x
x

x
x
x

x
x
x

x
x

x
x

2 Innovation
Patents
General
European
USA
Patent type
Other forms of innovation
International activity related to
innovation
Innovation in enterprises

x
x

x
x
x
x

x
x
x

x
x

x
x

x
x

x
x

x
x
x
x
x

x
x

3 Private Sector
Enterprises
Specialisation of enterprises
Operations and strategy
Employment
Technolofy acquisition
Productivity and economic
performance

x
x

x
x

x
x

x
x

x
x

x
x

x
x
x
x
x

x
x
x
x
x
x

x
x

x
x

4 Public Sector
Investments and productivity
Employment
Institutions
Operations and regulations

x
x

x
x
x
x

x
x

5 R&D
Resources
General
Public sector
Private sector
Employment
General
Public sector
Private sector
Type of R&D

x
x

x
x
x
x
x
x
x

x
x

x
x
x
x
x
x

x
x

x
x

x
x

x
x
x
x
x
x
x

x
x
x
x
x

x
x

x
x
x

x
x

x
x

6 Finance
Venture capital
Other investments

x
x
x
x
x
x

x
x

x
x
x
x
x
x

x
x
x
x
x

7 Interaction
National and regional cooperation
University-Business
Public government-Business
Business to Business
International cooperation
Trade
Investments and ownership
Others

x
x

x
x

x
x
x

8 Attitudes and Values

Attitudes
Values

x
x

x
x
x

x
x

9 Infrastructure
ICT
Accessibility
Physical infrastructure

x
x

x
x

x
x

10 Economic Performance
GDP

Employment and unemployment

Employment
Unemployment
Productivity
Income and poverty

x
x
x

x
x
x

x
x
x
x
x

x
x

x
x
x

x
x
x
x
x
x

11 Environment and Health

Environment
Health

x
x

Abbreviations:
EIS: European Innovation Scoreboard 2005
ECI (H): The European Competitiveness Index 2004
RIA: Measuring Regional Innovation: A Guidebook for Conducting Regional Innovation Assessment 2005
STIS: Science, Technology and Industry (STI) Scoreboard 2005
RCI: Constructing an Index for Regional Competitiveness 2001
TB: Technology Barometer 2004
GCI: Global Competitiveness Index 2006
ECI (F&T): Euro-Creativity Index 2004
ES: Espon Briefing 2 2006
II: Innovation Index 1999
ISV: Index of Silicon Valley 2006
CI: Knowledge and Innovation Subsidies as Engines for growth The Competitiveness of Finnish Regions 2006
RC: Regional Competitiveness: A comparative study of eight European regions 1999

27