Review and new evidence on composite innovation indicators for evaluating national performance

Research Policy

Volumn 39, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 67-78

  Grupp, Hariolf ^a,b   Schubert, Torben ^a,c  

^a FRAUNHOFER INSTITUTE FOR SYSTEMS AND INNOVATION RESEARCH ISI   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF KARLSRUHE   (Germany)

^c TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Composite indicators; National innovation systems; Science and technology indicators; Scoreboards

Indexed keywords

AUTOMATIC METHOD; COMPOSITE INDICATORS; COMPOSITE NUMBERS; NATIONAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS; NATIONAL LEVEL; POLICY MEASURES; SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY; SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY INDICATORS; SHADOW PRICE; STANDARD PRACTICES;

ELECTROCHEMICAL CORROSION; LINEAR PROGRAMMING; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING; TECHNOLOGY;

INNOVATION;

EID: 74149093952     PISSN: 00487333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2009.10.002     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Aghion P., and Howitt P. A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica 60 (1992) 323-351
2. Archibugi D., and Coco A. A new indicator of technological capabilities for developed and developing countries (ArCo). World Development 4 2004 (2004) 629-654
3. Archibugi D., and Coco A. Measuring technological capabilities at the country level: a survey and a menu for choice. Research Policy 34 (2005) 175-194
4. Arundel A., and Hollanders H. 2006 Trend Chart Methodology Report (2006), European Commission, Brussels
5. Balzat, M., Ebersberger, B., 2006. Evaluating the Performance of National Innovation Systems. Mimeo. Augsburg University.
6. Booysen F. An overview and evaluation of composite indices of development. Social Indicators Research 59 (2002) 115-151
7. Brammer S., and Millington A. The effect of stakeholder preferences, organizational structure and industry type on corporate community involvement. Journal of Business Ethics 45 (2003) 213-226
8. Camp R.C. Benchmarking: The Search for Industry Best Practices That Lead to Superior Performance (1989), ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee
9. Cazal C., Florens J.P., and Simar L. Nonparametric Frontier estimation: a robust approach. Journal of Econometrics 106 (2002) 1-25
10. Charnes A., Cooper W.W., and Rhodes E. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operations Research 2 (1978) 429-444
11. Cherchye, L., Moesen, W., van Puyenbroeck, T., 2004a. Social inclusion in the EU: towards a synthetic indicator with endogenous weights - the open method of coordination and minimum income protection in Europe. In: Cantillon, B., Vandamme, J. (Eds.), Leuven, pp. 69-81.
12. Cherchye L., Moesen W., and van Puyenbroeck T. Legitimately diverse, yet comparable: on synthesizing social inclusion performance in the EU. Journal of Common Market Studies 42 (2004) 919-955
13. Cherchye, L., Lovell, C.A.K., Moesen, W., van Puyenbroeck, T., 2005. One market, one number? A composite indicator assessment of EU internal market dynamics. Discussion Paper Series DPS 05.13. Center for Economic Studies, Leuven University.
14. Cherchye L., Moesen W., Rogge N., van Puyenbroeck T., Saisana M., Saltelli A., Liska R., and Tarantola S. Creating composite indicators with DEA and robustness analysis: the case of the Technology Achievement Index. Journal of the Operational Research Society 59 (2008) 239-251
15. Daouia, A., Simar, L., 2004. Nonparametric efficiency analysis: a multivariate conditional quantile approach. Technical Report 0419 IAPSTATISTICS.
16. Ebersberger, B., 2002. Benchmarking Finnish Competitiveness. Mimeo. V.T.T.
17. European Commission (Ed.), 2001. European Innovation Scoreboard 2001. SEC, Luxemburg, p. 1414.
18. European Commission (Ed.), Biotechnology Innovation Scoreboard 2003. Innovation/SMEs Programme, Brussels.
19. European Commission (Ed.), 2003. Third European Report on Science & Technology Indicators 2003. EUR 20025 EN, Brussels.
20. European Commission (Ed.), European Innovation Scoreboard 2005. Brussels.
21. European Commission (Ed.), European Innovation Scoreboard 2006. Brussels.
22. European Commission (Ed.), European Innovation Scoreboard 2007. Brussels.
23. In: Edler J., Kuhlmann S., and Behrens M. (Eds). Changing Governance of Research and Technology Policy - The European Research Area (2003), Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham and Northhampton
24. Eichhorn W. What is an Economic Index? An Attempt of an Answer. In: Eichhorn E., Henn R., Opitz O., and Shaphard R.W. (Eds). Theory and Applications of Economic Indices (1978), Physica-Verlag, Würzburg
25. In: Eichhorn W., Henn R., Opitz O., and Shephard R.W. (Eds). Theory and Applications of Economic Indices (1978), Physica-Verlag, Würzburg
26. Farrell M.J. The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A 120 (1957) 253-281
27. Freudenberg, M., 2003. Composite indicators of country performance: a critical assessment. STI Working Paper 2003/16.
28. Geisler E. The Metrics of Science and Technology (2000), Quorum Books, Westport
29. Griliches Z. R&D and productivity: econometric results and measurement issues. In: Stoneman P. (Ed). Handbook of Economics of Innovation and Technological Change (1995), Blackwell Handbooks in Economics, Oxford 52-89
30. Grossman G., and Helpman E. Innovation and Growth in the Global Economy (1993), The MIT Press, Cambridge
31. Grupp H. The measurement of technical performance of innovations by technometrics and its impact on established technology indicators. Research Policy 23 (1994) 175-193
32. Grupp H. Foundations of the Economics of Innovation - Theory, Measurement and Practice (1998), Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham and Northhampton
33. Grupp H., and Hohmeyer O. A technometric model for the assessment of technological standards and their application to selected technology-intensive products. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 30 (1986) 123-137
34. Grupp H., and Maital S. Managing New Product Development - A Microeconomic Toolbox (2001), Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham and Northhampton
35. Grupp H., and Mogee M. Indicators for national science and technology policy: how robust are composite indicators. Research Policy 33 (2004) 1373-1384
36. Grupp H., Legler H., and Licht G. Technologie und Qualifikation für neue Märkte (2004), BMBF, Berlin
37. Hollenstein H. A composite indicator of a firm's innovativeness: an empirical analysis based on Survey Data for Swiss Manufacturing. Research Policy 25 (1996) 633-645
38. Hülskamp N., and Koppel O. Deutschlands Position im Innovationswettbewerb - Ergebnisse des IW-Innovationsbenchmarkings, IW-Trends - Vierteljahresbericht zur empirischen. Wirtschaftsforschung 32 (2005) 1-29
39. Iking B., and Langhoff M. Regional Innovation Scoreboard 2004 (2005), Zenit, Mühlheim
40. Jacobs R., Goddard M., and Smith P.C. How robust are hospital ranks based on composite performance measures?. Medical Care 43 (2005) 1177-1184
41. Kearnes D.T. Quality improvement begins at the top. World 20 (1986) 21
42. Kodama F. A system approach to science indicators. In: Grupp H. (Ed). Problems of Measuring Technological Change (1987), Verlag TÜV Rheinland, Köln 65-87
43. Martin B.R. The use of multiple indicators in the assessment of basic research. Scientometrics 36 (1996) 343-362
44. Moon H.S., and Lee J.D. A fuzzy set theory approach to national composite S&T indices. Scientometrics 64 (2005) 67-83
45. Munda G., and Nardo M. Constructing Consistent Composite Indicators: The Issue of Weights (2005), Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen, Luxembourg EUR 21834
46. Munda G., and Nardo M. Non-compensatory/non-linear composite indicators for ranking countries: a defensible setting. Applied Economics 41 (2009) 1513-1523
47. Nardo M., Saisana M., Saltelli A., and Tarantola S. Tools for Composite Indicators Building (2005), EC Joint Research Centre EUR 21682
48. Nardo, M., Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S., Hoffman, A., Giovannini, E. (2008). Handbook on constructing composite indicators: methodology and user guide. STI Statistics Working Paper.
49. Nelson R.R. National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis (1993), Oxford University Press, New York, New York
50. Niwa F., and Tomizawa H. Integrated indicators: international comparisons of overall strengths in science and technology. In: NISTEP (Ed). Science and Technology Indicators, 1994 (1995), Science and Technology Agency, Tokyo 345-365
51. Niwa F., and Tomizawa H. A trial of general indicator of science and technology: methodological study of overall estimation of national S&T activities. Scientometrics 37 (1996) 245-265
52. In: OECD (Ed). OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard (2005), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris
53. Paasi M. Collective benchmarking of policies: an instrument for policy. Science and Public Policy 32 (2005) 17-27
54. Papaioannou T., Rush H., and Bessant J. Benchmarking as a policy-making tool: from the private to the public sector. Science and Public Policy 33 (2006) 91-102
55. Patel P., and Pavitt K. Their measurement and interpretation. In: Stoneman P. (Ed). Handbook of Economics of Innovation and Technological Change (1995), Blackwell Handbooks in Economics, Oxford 15-51
56. Pavitt K. Uses and abuses of patent statistics. In: van Raan (Ed). Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology (1988), Amsterdam, North-Holland 509-536
57. Pohn-Weidinger S.H., Gassler M., Gruber M., Polt W., Schibany A., and Leo H. Innovationsbericht 2001 (2001), Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Arbeit, Wien
58. Porter M.E., and Stern S. The New Challenge to America's Prosperity: Findings from the Innovation Index (1999), Council on Competitiveness, Washington
59. Romer P.M. Increasing returns to scale and long-run growth. Journal of Political Economy 94 (1986) 1002-1037
60. Romer P.M. Growth based on increasing returns due to specialization. American Economic Review 77 (1987) 56-62
61. Romer P.M. Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy 98 (1990) 72-102
62. Rosen R. Life Itself (1991), Columbia University Press, New York
63. Rosen R. Essays on Life Itself (1999), Columbia University Press, New York
64. Saisana M., and Tarantola S. State-of-the-art Report on Current Methodologies and Practices for Composite Indicator Development (2002), EC Joint Research Centre EUR 20408
65. Sajeva M., Gatelli D., Tarantola S., and Hollanders H. Methodology Report on the European Innovation Scoreboard 2005 (2005), European Commission, Brussels
66. Saltelli A. Composite indicators between analysis and advocacy. Social Indicators Research 81 (2006) 65-77
67. Schibany, A., Streicher, G., Gassler, H., 2007. Der European Innovation Scoreboard: Vom Nutzen und Nachteil Indikatorgestützter Länderrankings. TeReg Research Report Nr. 65-2007. Joanneum Research, Graz und Wien.
68. Solow R.M. A contribution to the theory of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics 70 (1957) 65-94
69. Tijssen R.J.W. Scoreboards of research excellence. Research in Evaluation 12 (2003) 91-103
70. Werwatz A., Belitz H., Kim T., Schmidt-Ehmke J., and Voßkamp R. Innovationsindikator Deutschland (2005), DIW, Berlin
71. Zabala-Iturriagagoitia F., Jiménez-Sáez E., Castro-Martínez E., and Gutiérrez-Gracia A. Regional innovation systems: how to assess performance. Regional Studies 41 (2007) 661-672