1 / 33

Madrid - 3 July 2008

Madrid - 3 July 2008. Europe’s R&D: missing the wrong target Bruegel POLICY BRIEF 2008/3, March Bruno VAN POTTELSBERGHE (ULB, Solvay Business School, Bruegel) Working Paper with Azèle Mathieu Working Paper with Didier François Other references. The R&D intensity target.

dorian-yang
Download Presentation

Madrid - 3 July 2008

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Madrid - 3 July 2008 Europe’s R&D: missing the wrong target Bruegel POLICY BRIEF 2008/3, March Bruno VAN POTTELSBERGHE (ULB, Solvay Business School, Bruegel) • Working Paper with Azèle Mathieu • Working Paper with Didier François • Other references

  2. The R&D intensity target • Since 2002…The Lisbon Agenda • 3% of GDP should be devoted to R&D • One third being funded by government • 1 Observation • 2 ‘bémol’ • 2 hypotheses

  3. Europe’s R&D:Missing the wrongtarget Source: van Pottelsberghe, Bruegel Policy Brief 2008/03,

  4. EU’s R&D intensity has been flat liningunder 2% for 25 years Total R&D intensity over 25 years Source: van Pottelsberghe, Bruegel Policy Brief 2008/03,

  5. Source: van Pottelsberghe, Bruegel Policy Brief 2008/03, There are strong variations across States, but the distribution isalwayshigher in the US, with 7 States above 4%

  6. The R&D intensity target • Since 2002…The Lisbon Agenda • 3% of GDP should be devoted to R&D • One third being funded by government • 1 Observation • 2 ‘bémol’ • 2 hypotheses

  7. Government-funded R&D actually dropped over the past ten years • None of the EU member states has fulfilled its self-set commitment, as no country actually devotes one percent of its GDP to funding public or business (through subsidies and procurement) performed research activities. The only countries that are close to the 1% target are Sweden, Austria and Finland. • A large number of countries have actually reduced their government funding of R&D as a percentage of GDP. A drop also occurred in the US and Japan over the same period, but it was largely compensated for by a more than proportional increase in business-funded R&D, which was not the case for EU27.

  8. Source: van Pottelsberghe, Bruegel Policy Brief 2008/03,

  9. And national reform programs are frequentlyoverambitious, especially in countries withlow R&D intensity Source: van Pottelsberghe, Bruegel Policy Brief 2008/03,

  10. Technologicalspecialization must beaccounted for whenanalysing countries’ R&D intensity. Cf. Mathieu and van Pottelsberghe, 2008 Source: Mathieu & BVP, 2008

  11. RIi,jt = βjJ + φtT(1) RIi,jt = βjJ + αiI + φtT(2) 18 countries (j) with 21 industries (i) over five years (t)

  12. Country effectwithout and withindustrydummies . Cf. Mathieu and van Pottelsberghe, 2008, 22 industries, 2000-2004, all estimatesinclude time dummies Adj. R-2 Without ID: 32% With ID: 69% Source: Mathieu and van Pottelsberghe, 2008, new results

  13. Regression on 18 countries, 5 years (2000-2004), 21 industries Intercept Timme dummies (ref: 2000) Country dummies (ref: GE) Sectoral dummies (ref: Mach. and equip.) None of the time dummies are significant Source: Mathieu and van Pottelsberghe, 2008, new results

  14. R&D intensity, 2000-2004 Higher than Germany Like Germany Below Germany

  15. EU wrt USA and Japan(1998-2002, 3 regions, 21 industries)

  16. Source: Mathieu and van Pottelsberghe, 2008, R&D intensity, 1998-2002

  17. Comparative advantage of countries in emerging technology fields (share of patents in the field in the country divided by the share of the field in total OECD patents). EPO patent applications; Priority Year 2003 Source: D. Guellec and D. Pilat, Productivity Growth and innovation in OECD, forthcoming, 08

  18. The R&D intensity target • Since 2002…The Lisbon Agenda • 3% of GDP should be devoted to R&D • One third being funded by government • 1 Observation • 2 ‘bémol’ • 2 hypotheses

  19. Why do some countries have a higher R&D intensity? • Expected return… • Market size: need more integration (USA)? • No market for technology • Fragmented systems in Europe: costs and complexity

  20. Patenting ProcessesThe case of the European Patent Office

  21. Source: van Pottelsberghe and François, 2006 The EPS - Cost consequences The lack of an integratedmarket for technologyinducesveryhighcosts of patenting and a complexmanagerialburden on Europeaninnovators Source: François and van Pottelsberghe, 2006, forthcoming

  22. Description Patent D Claims C Signatories of LA (15) NO language in common with the EPO (7) Language in common with the EPO (8) Non-Signatories of LA (19) D:NO D:NO D:YES D:EN** C: YES* C:YES C: YES C: YES BE, CH, DE, FR, LI, LU, MC, UK LV, SI HR, DK, IS, NL, SE AT, BG, CZ, CY, EE, ES, FI, GR, HU, IE, IT, LT, MT, NO, PL, PT, RO, SK, TR London Agreement(1st May 2008) * Patent granted by EPO has claims translated into 3 official languages of the EPO: English, French and German; ** State having no official language in common with one of the official language at the EPO, may require that translation of description to be supplied in the official language of the EPO prescribed by that state;

  23. 21% 62% 24% 48% 29% 39% 26% The impact of London Agreement on the cost of patenting in Europe, May 2008 (*) Relative cost saving EPO-3: DE, FR, UK- with more than 70% of the EP patents validated in 2003; EPO-6: DE, FR, UK, CH, IT, NL - more than 30%; EPO-13: DE, FR, UK, CH, IT, NL, AT, BE, ES, DK, FI, IE, SE - more than 12%; EPO-34: all the EPC contracting states as of May 2008; Source: van Pottelsberghe and Mejer, 2008, forthcoming

  24. Cost structure of direct patent fillings and 10 year of maintenance,May 2008 (in US PPP) Source: van Pottelsberghe and Mejer, 2008, forthcoming

  25. Procedural and translation costs relative to the US (per claim*) Note: *Numbers in brackets indicate procedural and transaction cost per claim relative to the US. Source: van Pottelsberghe and Mejer, 2008, forthcoming

  26. Millions of claims filled v. procedural and translation costper claim per million capita (2006)* EPO-6(LP15) Note: * The axis x-shows cost per claim per million capita, expressed in US PPPs 2006, and includes process and translation costs. The axis-y shows the total number of claims filled in 2006 in each patent office. The line indicates the trend between three main regional offices: EPO, JPO and USPTO. Source: van Pottelsberghe and Mejer, 2008, forthcoming

  27. Why do some countries have a higher R&D intensity? • Expected return… • Market size: need more integration (USA)? • No market for technology • Fragmented systems in Europe: costs and complexity • More Academic research (Sweden)? • Provides ideas to the market • Does not compete on the market for researchers

  28. Academicresearchprovides new ideas to the market, inducing more appliedresearch and development for the business sector Source: van Pottelsberghe, Bruegel Policy Brief 2008/03,

  29. Why do we have a US and a Swedish exception? • Expected return… • Market size: need more integration (USA)? • No market for technology • Fragmentedsystems in Europe: costs and complexity • More Academicresearch (Sweden)? • Providesideas to the market • Does not compete on the market for researchers • Other science and technologypolicies? • Subsidies, taxcredits… • Framework conditions, laws, ….

  30. Learning from evaluations Guellec and van Pottelsberghe (2003, 2004) Impact on growth Impact on business R&D + 0 nr ++ +/- + + - Regulation : FDA, ...., PATENTING SYSTEM

  31. Concluding remarks • International comparisons of R&D intensity must account for technological specialization • Very few government have met their own agenda • Sweden and the USA however stand well above other countries (as opposed to South Korea, Finland, Denmark) • Other factors are : • Market size: need more integration (USA)? • More academic research (Sweden)? • Other science and technology policies? • Subsidies, tax credits… • Framework conditions, laws, ….

  32. References • van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B. and D. François, 2008, The cost factor in patent systems, Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, in press. • van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B., M. Mejer, 2008, The London Agreement and the relative cost of patenting in Europe, CEPR Discussion Paper, forthcoming. • Guellec D. and B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2004, From R&D to productivity growth: do the institutional settings and the sources of funds of R&D matter?, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 66(3), 353-376. • Guellec D. and B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2003, The impact of public R&D expenditure on business R&D, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 12(3), 225-244. • Mathieu A. and B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2008, A note on the drivers of R&D intensity, CEPR Discussion Paper, 6684. • Guellec D. and B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2007, The Economics of the European Patent System, Oxford University Press, Oxford, February, 250 p.

More Related