| National policy discussions frequently debate the best ways to increase business expenditures in research and development (BERD), including forms of financial and non-financial support. Countries often focus efforts around specific business sectors and/or technologies. | |
| The theme most frequently addressed by policy initiatives are financial support and targeted support to SMEs. | |
| Technology extension and business advisory services is the most common form of non-financial support. | |
| Policy initiatives often indicate yearly budget expenditures ranging between 1M and 20M EUR, which typically address start-ups and SMEs and combine forms of financial and non-financial support. | |
| The largest budgets are allocated for schemes providing corporate tax relief for R&D and innovation. |
In their response to the 2019 EC-OECD STIP survey, countries indicated the main policy debates around government support to Innovation in firms and innovative entrepreneurship (raw data included below in Annex A). Several patterns can be identified from these responses:
A frequent overarching goal is to increase the private sector's share of national gross expenditures in research and development (GERD). In New Zealand and Finland, business expenditures are seen as critical to achieve GERD targets of 2% of GDP by 2027 and 4% of GDP by 2030, respectively. Poland and Thailand highlight how business expenditures have rose to 66% and 80% of total GERD in recent years, respectively.
A recurring issue in national debates focuses on determining the most effective modalities of support. Most countries highlight growing roles of financial support. In particularly, several have indicated expanding provisions in tax credit schemes to answer a wider variety of needs. This includes Argentina (exemptions for innovation), Chile (administrative and staff cost for R&D; start-ups), China (angel and venture capital investment), Italy (digital skills investments) and Poland (income from intellectual property rights). Other countries emphasise the role of public procurement in promoting innovation in firms. Finland, for instance, aims to raise innovative public procurement as a share of total procurement to 10% by 2023, from its current level of about 5%. Japan is reviewing procurement practices to encourage the development and introduction of advanced technologies. Under Spain's STI State Plan for 2017-2020, public procurement procedures have been revised to increase their effectiveness in promoting innovation and to bring greater clarity and transparency for both procurers and suppliers.
Some governments seek to create a coherent and comprehensive mix of financial support, that meet a variety of needs specific to nascent firms, SMEs and larger, established companies. For example, Belgium's Brussels authority seeks to provide financial assistance across each step of the business innovation cycle. Canada aims to ensure a streamlined delivery of programmes to companies as they develop across various stages: from being established, to scaling-up and entering international markets. In Italy, an extensive portfolio of incentives was laid out to support innovative start-ups and SMEs at all stages of their life cycle, from incorporation to expansion and maturity.
Besides direct funding, many governments also discuss the provision of non-financial support. Lithuania, for example, aims to establish a favourable business environment through a package of measures, including start-up visas, business advisory support and the streamlining of licensing procedures. Thailand has built a National Science and Technology Infrastructure to provide testing and consultancy services that attend the growing demand for high quality product testing in the Thai industry. Several countries seek to improve the regulatory framework as a means to encourage entrepreneurship and business innovation. Australia, for example, is aiming to enact regulatory changes to counter a culture of risk aversion. Brazil and Ireland envisage reform reducing regulatory barriers to entrepreneurship. The Netherlands is finding the right balance in regulation for new forms of financing for innovation, such as crowdfunding.
Many governments emphasise specific support directed to SMEs. For instance, Germany seeks to motivate and enable especially SMEs and young enterprises/start-ups to innovate through networks and clusters and thus strengthen their market position. Ireland has identified raising productivity growth in SMEs and increasing the business start-up rate as critical challenges. The Netherlands is establishing field labs that place equipment at the disposal of SMEs for testing through small scale production, with coaching and training (e.g. for 3-D printing, handling composite materials). Sweden, viewing start-ups and SME as strategically important, is creating ecosystems of incubators and accelerators that link large multinational enterprises with innovative start-ups.
National debates on support to business innovation and innovative entrepreneurship often spin around specific sectors and/or technologies. Several EU Member countries, such as Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia and Romania, structure their policy initiatives around smart specialisation strategies that target specific business sectors. The European Union shapes its agenda around strategic Key Enabling Technologies (KETs): advanced materials and nanotechnology, photonics and micro- and nano-electronics, life science technologies, advanced manufacturing and processing, artificial intelligence and digital security and connectivity. Many countries seek to harness opportunities brought by digitalisation and the so-called fourth industrial revolution. Turkey's National Development Plan 2019-2023, for example, prioritises areas such as artificial intelligence, internet of things, augmented reality, big data and cyber security. Belgium's Flemish authority is developing an integrated agenda for digital entrepreneurship and innovation. Portugal is seeking to accelerate the adoption of its digital transformation agenda by the business fabric, promoting national technological suppliers as industry 4.0 players to become an attractive pole for related investments. The Russian Federation's National Programme "Digital Economy" provides a number of new grants and subsidies to support innovative SMEs within the IT sector.
Finally, another salient trend in national debates concerns seizing opportunities of business innovation and innovative entrepreneurship to address societal challenges. Finland's government programme for 2019-2023, for instance, aims at creating international billion euro ecosystems that provide solutions to global societal challenges. The United Kingdom' Industrial Strategy also establishes a series of Grand Challenges to tackle global issues through which the country could be at the forefront of major industries of the future. Spain recognises the pressing need of fostering the development of digital “general purpose technologies” to tackle societal challenges. More information and analysis on initiatives addressing these challenges is available in the Research and innovation for society policy area.
Themes within the Innovation in firms and innovative entrepreneurship policy area are ranked in Figure 1 by the number of initiatives addressing them. By a wide margin, the most frequently addressed theme is Financial support to business R&D and innovation, covering various types of funding schemes such as tax incentives, grants and debt financing programmes. Secondly comes Targeted support to SMEs, including various types of policies addressed to firms of this size (as opposed to large firms or companies in general). Policies supporting SMEs often include specific grants and subsidies, innovation vouchers and technology extension services, among other forms of support. This theme is followed by Non-financial support to business R&D and innovation, which consists of programs for the provision of non-monetary assistance such as technical expertise, training, mentoring, networking and marketing and advertising support. The fourth most recurrent theme is oriented to another class of firms, i.e. Targeted support to young innovative enterprises. It includes policy initiatives supporting the emergence and/or development of new innovative firms, such as specific programmes for start-ups. The fifth theme with most policies is Access to finance for innovation, covering incentives for business angels, venture capital investors and other types of investments allowing companies to raise funding.
While, unsurprisingly, Figure 2 shows that Firms are the most frequently addressed target group, it is worth noting how many more policies address a specific size (SMEs) compared to firms by age (Young firms (1 to 5 years old)). SMEs are followed by Entrepreneurs, with keywords (obtained when hovering the corresponding bar with the mouse pointer) suggesting that many policies relate to start-ups, venture capital, business development and training. Some of these policies also target Private investors, seeking to encourage their contribution to the entrepreneurial activity. Many policies involve Public research institutes, Higher education institutes and Established researchers as well, e.g. aiming to commercialise the knowledge produced by these research actors and also fostering public-private collaborative projects. The National government is at times a beneficiary of these initiatives, for example in the procurement of R&D and innovation that benefits a public service or in national innovation strategies and plans. Several reported policies aim to address knowledge intermediaries: primarily Incubators, accellerators, science parks or technoparks but also Industry associations and Technology transfer offices.
Following a similar pattern as in the Public research system policy area, Grants for business R&D and innovation are the most frequently used policy instrument, followed by National strategies, agendas and plans. There are more grants than strategies in Innovation in firms and innovative entrepreneurship, however, as there is a relatively larger role for governance within the public research system. Business sector strategies usually address topics such as technology development, energy, artificial intelligence, sustainable development and other social challenges (see keywords). Technology extension and business advisory services are used as the main form of non-financial support. These services cover aspects such as operations, production, quality, logistics, workforce skills, learning capabilities and the adoption of new technologies. They often have the objective of increasing firm productivity and efficiency. Another common form of non-financial support is Networking and collaborative platforms, aiming to gather actors for various business-oriented goals such as building entrepreneurial networks, collaborative research projects and technology development around specific fields, e.g. artificial intelligence and energy. Concerning innovative entrepreneurship, Equity funding plays a major role in promoting access to finance for start-ups, young firms and SMEs. Policies using this instrument often involve business angels and investment funds to promote seed funds and venture capital (see keywords). Finally, while relatively not numerous in the database, Corporate tax relief for R&D and innovation are a key instrument, allocating large amounts of indirect funding to firms' STI activities via tax credits, as highlighted below.
Initiatives within the Innovation in firms and innovative entrepreneurship policy area reporting budget data often fall within the 1M-5M and 5M-20M EUR yearly expenditures (Figure 4). Keywords indicate that initiatives within these ranges often address start-ups and SMEs and include forms of non-financial support (i.e. expertise, knowledge transfer and training) in addition to financial aid. Initiatives with higher budgets appear to be more frequently associated with collaborations involving research actors, i.e. seeking to help firms leverage public research results (see the Science-industry knowledge transfer and sharing policy area). Schemes using Corporate tax relief for R&D and innovation usually allocate the largest funds, as indicated by the keywords for budget ranges superior to 100M EUR. Across all ranges, 'commercialisation' is a recurrent keyword, which highlights how these policies recurrently prioritise bringing research, technologies and innovations to markets.
Figure 5 shows that Portugal has reported the largest number of initiatives in this policy area, followed by Ireland, the United Kingdom and Austria. The chart shows only the number of policy initiatives reported by countries and gives no indication of their scale or scope. The figure should therefore be interpreted with care. Clicking on a given bar in the chart will bring you to the corresponding country dashboard for Innovation in firms and innovative entrepreneurship policies.
Table 1 contains the answers provided by countries (and other entities) to the following question: Briefly, what are the main ongoing policy debates around government support to business innovation and innovative entrepreneurship? You may use the table's search box to filter the data by country or keyword. You may also dowload the data in Excel format.
Table 1. Policy debates in the Innovation in firms and innovative entrepreneurship policy area
| Response | |
|---|---|
| Argentina | The overall context for the Argentinian SMEs and entrepreneurs and their international expansion has been favoured by efforts done by the current government to bring macroeconomic stability, decrease inflation -towards reaching the one digit goal in 2019- and to institutionalize frameworks to guarantee a sustainable growth.. Legal instruments and financial tools have recently received particular attention, such as seed funds, loans, tax exemptions for innovation, public-private co-investment programs, crowdfunding platforms, and venture capital for technological and scientific-based accelerators. Though recently created, the Trust Fund for the Development of Entrepreneur Capital (FONDCE), the Simplified Stock Company (SAS) and the Collective Financing System are also expected to encourage the expansion of the entrepreneurial capital industry. |
| Australia | Public investment in the innovation system must provide economic and social dividends through increased job opportunities and economic growth. Spurring innovation is a major factor in improving productivity and an important policy objective for the Australian Government. It is particularly important in the current economic environment, characterised by fiscal constraints and low interest rates. Business innovation improves business performance, including internal competitiveness: the more novel and frequent the innovations, the greater their impact on business performance. A major focus of the debate on innovation policy has been how to allocate government resources most efficiently among targeted innovation initiatives. Another key issue pertains to how the Australian Government can best embed a culture of innovation in Australian business. This debate has focused on the following elements: - Ensuring greater collaboration between industry and the research sector (including discussions on realigning incentive structures for both sectors). - Enacting regulatory changes to counter a culture of risk aversion, while preserving incentives for investors. - Establishing mechanisms to enable businesses to access the skills they need to remain competitive. Further policy debates around government support to business innovation and innovative entrepreneurship involve how best to encourage business investment in research and development activities and how government procurement can be used to support and incentivise innovation. |
| Austria | Governmental assistance and support of businesses has been flourishing within the last decades. The Federal Ministry for Transport, Innovation and Technology (BMVIT) and the Federal Ministry for Digital and Economic Affairs (BMDW) have developed numerous research funding programmes, such as COMET and Christian Doppler Laboratories, to mention just a few. Furthermore, the research premium, which in 2018 has risen to 14%, is an important incentive for national and international businesses to establish and carry out research in Austria. However, the aforementioned ministries not only engage in updating existing programmes to current needs but also create new funding opportunities for businesses, such as a digitalisation and growth fund (“Digitalisierungs- und Wachstumsfonds”) to scale-up business. |
| Belgium (Brussels authority) | Three broad topics seem to dominate ongoing policy debates regarding government support to business innovation and innovative entrepreneurship. Firstly, the last couple of years have been characterized by an important focus on the (business) innovation cycle. How can we make sure public support for RDI covers each step in the cycle? How to guarantee that business R&D actually results in new or improved products that are put to use in the market or in society at large? The Regional Innovation Plan (PRI, 2016-2020) of the Brussels Capital Region reflects this important debate. Indeed, the PRI has set in motion an entire range of actions that facilitate the innovation cycle (c.f. axis 1 of the PRI: "Améliorer la chaîne de l'innovation"). In the meantime, the vast majority of these actions have become operational while some other actions are fully prepared but still need to launched. Some examples of actions are: proof of concept, proof of business, pre-seed funding, corporate spin-out, and secondment of researchers in SMEs. The first policy note of the Secretary of research and innovation of the new Brussels government (2019-2024) reaffirms the importance of the actions mentioned above. The note confirms that not only collaborative projects and technology transfer should be strengthened (e.g. via the programmes Joint R&D Project Call, Experimental Platforms, Corporate Spin-Out) but also innovative start-ups (e.g. Proof of Business, Bruseed). Secondly, a debate has been ongoing on the importance of supporting not only traditional R&D actors, but also non-traditional RDI actors such as social entrepreneurs and non-profit organisations. This fits in with the idea that if a heterogeneous group of actors come together, it will be easier to arrive at (social) innovations that tackle a large variety of pressing societal challenges. As explained below, it is precisely such societal challenges (climate change, pollution, mobility, social welfare, etc.) that have moved to the forefront of the policy debate in Brussels. Thirdly, and very much related to the previous point, the general declaration of the new government of the Brussels Region (legislature 2019-2024) states that by 2030 all public support for businesses should be directed towards socially and ecologically responsible activities. For policy evaluators this means that they will have to turn to policy evaluation methods that are capable of measuring the societal and ecological impacts of business RDI projects. |
| Belgium (Federal Government authority) | For space matters, the ongoing policy debates relate to the agenda of the ESA Council at Ministerial Level in late 2019: to what programmes will Belgium subscribe? What is the motivation for such subscription? What is the relation between the EC space initiatives and the ESA space programmes? How can we increase the participation of Belgian space stakeholders to EC space programmes, by supporting them via ESA programmes? The Belgian space strategy has several aims, including to: - support scientific actors and to promote them as Prime Investigators for scientific missions in Europe and worldwide, - support industry and help them being competitive in Europe and worldwide, and - support space programs that promote international collaboration in space. Tax incentives have been in place for a while. As part of their regular updated evaluation reports, the planning bureau (bureau du plan) started a discussion regarding the efficiency of each of these measures, revealing that some of them show no input additionality regarding research. |
| Belgium (Flanders authority) | In its policy memorandum 2019-2024, the VARIO (Flemish Advisory Council for Innovation and Entrepreneurship) calls for particular attention to innovative high-growth companies, young companies, but also more mature companies in a new growth phase, given their role in job creation, and for a vibrant and dynamic economy. Flanders will stimulate entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial culture and the growth of its SMEs. Efforts will be made to remove the barriers that SMEs are facing when innovating and doing business. Particular attention will be given to broadening the innovation base to small businesses (customized procedures, better connection with clusters) and restoring the productivity growth. One of the transversal projects of the minister is developing an integrated agenda for digital entrepreneurship and innovation. |
| Belgium (Wallonia authority) | A recurring debate in Wallonia concerns innovation in SMEs. Indeed, the Walloon industrial environment is made up of a majority of small businesses, many of which do not engage in innovation. In the current economic context, a more innovative approach could allow these companies to strengthen their activities, particularly via new markets. The question of their access to the government’s innovation support system is therefore central. The PPS (Walloon Science Policy Council) believes that setting up a personalised support for companies, particularly SMEs, would make it easier for them to identify the most appropriate aid to further develop a project. This support seems particularly relevant at the time of the first contact of an SME with the regional RDI system and should facilitate the pursuit of innovation activities. |
| Brazil | The main ongoing policy debates around Brazil’s government support to business innovation and innovative entrepreneurship focus on: (i) regulation; (ii) venture capital availability; and, (iii) talent availability. Regulation This debate centres on how flexible and appropriate regulation in Brazil is to absorb, support and accelerate business innovation and innovative entrepreneurship. This, taking into account multiple dimensions such as disruptive business models and technologies, ease of doing business, science-industry cooperation and openness to foreign innovative products, processes and services. Venture capital availability This debate deals with venture capital availability in Brazil, necessary for financing its expected volume of business innovation and innovative entrepreneurship initiatives. In particular, a key discussion concerns whether the government can better contribute to the growth of a robust venture capital market. Talent availability This debate explores whether the talent needed to achieve the potential for business innovation and innovative entrepreneurship initiatives is available in Brazil. Particular emphasis is given to how public sector education and the research system can better prepare and develop these talents. This includes embedding the necessary innovation and entrepreneurship skills and the specialization in prioritized scientific areas. |
| Bulgaria | Under the OP “Innovation and competitiveness” 2014-2020, procedures for the “Creation and Development of Regional Innovation Centers” and “Development of Innovation Clusters” were announced. - Development of Innovation Clusters supports the promotion of cluster innovation by sharing facilities, sharing knowledge and experience, contributing effectively to knowledge transfer, building concrete networks of interdependent actors, often competing in the open market, disseminating information between enterprises and other organisations in the cluster. - Creation and Development of Regional Innovation Centers aims to build and develop a modern research and innovation infrastructure for conducting open-type applied research, contributing to the accelerated economic and social development of the Bulgarian regions. The focus of the procedure is on creating a working partnership between business and science for the benefit of the regional economy. Businesses have a leading role in creating the conditions for maximum use of the products of regional innovation centres, by introducing and commercialising the new technologies created in them. Another important aspect is the creation of an innovative and technological culture that underpins the success of this partnership. Given the strategic importance of the topic, all EU Member States (incl. Bulgaria) signed the Declaration of Cooperation on Artificial Intelligence (AI) on Digital Day 2018. According to the Coordinated Plan on Artificial Intelligence “by mid-2019 all Member States are encouraged to put in place – and share with other Member States and the Commission - national AI strategies or programmes or add AI dimensions in other relevant strategies and programmes outlining investment levels and implementation measures.” The Coordinated Plan is quite ambitious as it envisions many initiatives, funded by the EC, incl. through Horizon 2020. In the Bulgarian context, the relevant national institution is the Ministry of Economy (ME), which is also responsible for the Industry 4.0 Strategy. The ME intends to include an AI pillar in the Industry 4.0 Strategy, and afterwards it will develop a standalone AI Strategy. The Ministry of Education and Science (MES) is also in the process of developing a document on AI in education and science. When the process is finalised, it can and should be used as input in the ME’s strategies. The timeline of this process however is unclear as the topic is quite complex and sensitive, especially when it comes to education. The MES stands ready to support the ME in this exercise of common interest. The draft Strategy for Bulgaria’s participation in the Fourth Industrial Revolution (Industry 4.0) identifies the creation of conditions to deploy AI technologies in industry as one of the main priorities. Accompanying measures have been planned for this priority, and they will be included in the Action Plan for the Strategy. |
| Canada | The government is taking a horizontal approach to how it supports innovation and entrepreneurship across government, engaging a number of government departments and agencies through a more coordinated approach. This is best illustrated by the Innovation Canada digital platform, which connects firms to the programs best suited to their needs from federal, provincial and territorial governments. This support tackles a number of different issues, including: - Skills – To grow and scale-up, firms must be able to fill skills gaps, by gaining better access to global talent and recruiting from a broader, deeper pool of Canadians with strong STEM, business, creative, and digital skills. More work-integrated-learning placements are helping young Canadians learn the soft and technical skills they need to get their first jobs, and help firms to assess work-ready hires. The Global Skills Strategy also gives Canadian companies a faster and more predictable route to bring top talent and new skills from around the world to Canada. - Intellectual property – The Intellectual Property Strategy is making sure that Canadian businesses, creators, entrepreneurs and innovators have access to the best possible IP resources through IP awareness, education and advice; strategic IP tools for growth; and IP legislation. - Funding – To help firms scale-up, a number of programs are working together to ensure a streamlined delivery of programs to companies as they move along the innovation continuum: the National Research Council-Industrial Research Assistance Program targets applied research and commercialization; Regional Development Agencies target scale-up and export; Innovation, Science and Economic Development's (ISED) Strategic Innovation Fund targets large-scale, later-stage funding; Global Affairs Canada's (GAC) Trade Commissioner Service targets international market linkages. Other programs, including the Business Development Bank of Canada and Export Development Canada, are augmenting these flagship programs by increasing the availability of late-stage financing for innovative Canadian firms, and strengthening the Canadian VC ecosystem over the long term. - Advisory support – GAC's Accelerated Growth Service provides high-potential companies with tailored support to help them access government programs and grow. In addition, with offices across Canada and in 161 cities around the world, the Trade Commissioner Service (TCS) provides Canadian businesses with on-the-ground intelligence, qualified contacts, partnership opportunities, and practical advice on foreign markets to help them make better, timely, and cost-effective decisions to achieve their goals abroad. |
| Chile | The Chilean R&D law allows a 35% deduction of R&D expenditures directly from corporate taxes (with an annual USD 1 million ceiling). Additionally, the remaining 65% is considered a necessary expenditure when calculating corporate income tax, which has a tax rate of 27%. This implies that if a company spends USD 100 in an R&D project, it will get back USD 52.55 in total tax deductions (USD 35 for the R&D tax credit and USD 17.55 for profit tax deductions). Some actors in the private sector are requesting to render the acquisition small innovative firms (corporate venture capital) applicable for the R&D law as an investment in R&D. The Chilean Government, on the other hand, has concerns in having such a mechanism to boost innovation, i.e. approving this approach could introduce market distortions, benefitting particularly the wealthiest companies in Chile. This could encourage the so-called “killer acquisitions” (see Cunninghamy, Edererz and Max, 2019). Instead, the Government is considering, among others, the following alternatives: (a) increasing the maximum tax-deductible amount; (b) enlarging the pool of eligible costs of necessary expenditures in R&D (e.g. administration and staff cost); and, (c) helping start-ups that have yet to make profits. The latter would entail changing the R&D law to give start-ups in cash what they would have received from the tax credit if they had made profits. |
| China | In 2018, the Chinese government launched a pilot policy to promote angel investment and venture capital investment. It introduced various tax measures, such as improving the fixed asset accelerated depreciation policy, increasing the pre-tax deduction limit for general corporate employee education funds from 2.5% to 8%, extending the period for carrying forward corporate losses and improving the research expense deduction policy. The government allowed enterprises to entrust overseas research and development expenses to benefit from the pre-tax deduction policy. It increased the deduction rate from 50% to 75%, further motivating enterprises to increase investment in research and development, and supporting technological innovation. For the first time in 2017, the government issued a technology-based SME standard at the national level, which increased the deduction rate for technology-based SMEs from 50% to 75%. A total of 84 000 technology-based SMEs nationwide enjoy preferential policies for R&D expenses plus deductions, accounting for 51.9% of enterprises enjoying preferential policies for R&D expenses plus deductions, and a reduction of 37.5 billion yuan in corporate income tax. At the same time, the government has completed the construction of the information service platform for technology-based SMEs and officially launched the independent evaluation service for technology-based SMEs. Another area of significant activity concerns improving the intellectual property (IP) service system to form stable innovation expectation, and to effectively protect the initiative spirit of the participants of innovation. This includes reinforcing enforcement and introducing a punitive compensation system to fundamentally solve the outstanding issues that restrict IP protection, such as inconsistent judgment standards, geographical protection and complex litigation procedures. Such measures are expected to improve the incentive mechanism to encourage innovation from the perspective of the system and the direction of public opinion, establish a fair competition atmosphere, create a good environment for innovation, and respect those who dare to innovate. A stronger IP service system will accelerate the establishment of an academic integrity system and conduct zero tolerance for academic misconduct. It will also stimulate the entrepreneurial spirit, mobilize the enthusiasm for entrepreneurship and innovation in the whole society, promoting innovation and development. |
| Colombia | The main discussions centre around: (i) innovation and support for productivity in the manufacturing and service sectors; (ii) promoting the bio-economy, the digital transformation and industries 4.0; and, (iii) business innovation systems for small and medium enterprises. In addition, ongoing discussions are taking place around revising the design of funding programs and instruments to better address companies’ needs, the expansion of access to tax benefits for small and medium-sized enterprises and the management and the creation of capital funds. Key opportunities have been identified for seed funding and risk guarantees, particularly for the spin-off and technology-based entrepreneurship policy in specific sectors, such as the creative economy (Economía Naranja), particularly within the agricultural sector. |
| Costa Rica | There are two main ongoing policy debates: 1) Financing start-ups and SMEs in biotechnology, nanotechnology and convergent technologies that requires long-term support while current instruments allow allocations for only two or three years. As a possible solution, ongoing discussions are exploring linking or concatenating different existing funds. This could support the long-term funding requirement for this kind of projects. 2) The process in which entrepreneurs, SMEs and other actors apply for public funds. In particular, how to simplify the process despite a complicated regulatory framework which is difficult to improve. For example, several regulations consider only SMEs, excluding other kinds of actors in agriculture or the creative economy. |
| Croatia | This text comes from the 2017 STIP Survey: The previous law stipulating R&D support for companies through R&D tax incentives was in force until 31 December 2014. Since then, no such measure promoting R&D activities exists in Croatia, and businesses has insisted that it be reintroduced. Now that EU funds have opened up access to financing, the business community has suggested that the grant process be more user-friendly, simple and fast, so that companies can use the funds more efficiently. |
| Cyprus | One of the main strategic pillars of the 2019-23 Cyprus R&I Strategy Framework is Innovative Entrepreneurship. The objective of this particular pillar is to 'develop a favourable environment for technological development and innovate entrepreneurship'. The framework includes, inter alia, measures aiming to foster the R&I conducted by enterprises. Moreover, the majority of the programmes and schemes included in the Action Plan of the Cyprus’s Smart Specialisation Strategy (S3CY) seek to stimulate the involvement of the private sector in R&I activities and to nurture closer links between the enterprises and universities & research institutes. These programmes have been implemented by the Research and Innovation Foundation (RIF) via the RESTART 2016-20 Framework Programme. Furthermore, a recent revision of the Income Tax Law provides incentives aiming to foster investments in start-ups and innovative companies in Cyprus. In parallel, the start-up visa scheme aims to attract start-ups from non-EU countries to relocate in Cyprus and enhance the start-up ecosystem. Finally, the creation of spin-offs and the participation of public universities in legal entities is being promoted via the recent revision of the legislation governing the operations of the two main public universities (University of Cyprus and Cyprus University of Technology). |
| Czech Republic | Although Czech innovation performance is growing, the country is weak in protecting intellectual property and in investing venture capital in new companies, especially in start-ups. The Czech RDI system lags in its availability of venture capital investments for innovative entrepreneurship. The underdeveloped venture capital market is identified as the biggest obstacle. According to some opinions, the lack of interest in investing venture capital can also be explained by the lack of a tradition of venture capital investing and a complex legislative background. The formation of appropriate conditions and incentives for investing in start-ups and spin-offs is an area ripe for government support to innovative entrepreneurship. The government aims to establish an environment where the state with its tools will support the most risky period of emergence of new companies. |
| Denmark | Today, Denmark is one of the strongest research countries in the world. This is the result of large investments in private and public funded research, as well as a continuous effort in creating optimal conditions for knowledge production. However, knowledge production cannot be carried out in isolation. Denmark aims to become a world leader in turning research into innovation. When companies and entrepreneurs transform research and new knowledge into new technologies, products and solutions, it creates value for society as a whole. Since 2010, Denmark has attained overall high achievement in the European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS). The latest scoreboard showed Denmark to be in third place. However, even though Denmark is categorised as an “innovation leader”, it has yet to fully realise the expected potential (outcome) of increased investments in public research, of more autonomous research institutions with stronger leadership, and of a highly sophisticated and well-developed support system for innovation with many institutions that fulfil specific roles. |
| Estonia | In 2019, Estonia started to prepare its new Research and Development, Innovation and Entrepreneurship strategy. To help prepare the new joint strategy, a general assessment of the effectiveness of the research and innovation (R&I) system, and a specific assessment of the role and impact of the R&I system in promoting added-value (Horizon 2020 Policy Support Facility) were carried out. The main recommendations are to: - Ensure political commitment to the importance of R&I in national policy and to meet the 1% target for government spending on R&D. - Establish and implement thematic priorities for R&I policy, in the light of societal challenges and Estonia’s smart specialisation strategy. - Establish an innovation agency to support R&D and build absorptive capacity. - Strengthen the system of ‘intermediary organisations’ to support industrial innovation. - Modernise and ‘profile’ research at the universities, making them better adapted to innovation and the production of human capital to meet national needs. In addition, a Spending Review of Innovation and Entrepreneurship was adopted, together with a comprehensive implementation plan by government in October 2018. |
| European Union | One of the priorities of the EU research and innovation (R&I) policy debate concerns how to direct industrial R&I agendas towards more investments in sustainability. Part of the overall strategic objective of Horizon Europe (the upcoming EU R&I framework programme), is to successfully address climate change and contribute to the attainment of Sustainable Development Goals. A set of policy actions will be taken at the EU level to boost the transition to climate-neutral industries (i.e. zero-pollution and zero-waste), including support to the European Green Deal (a priority for the new Commission) and new European partnerships. The EU strives to ensure that the transition also includes competitiveness. In this context, business innovation will need breakthrough technologies that should be not only purpose-oriented but also profitable. European industrial R&I agendas and the issue of environmental sustainability are also linked to strategic value chains and the EU must tackle missing segments in this regard. To this end, EU R&I efforts will pay specific attention to key parts of strategic technology supply chains: ranging from secure and sustainable supply of raw materials (maximising the value of its resources and materials) to batteries, low-carbon industries, space critical components and smart connectivity platforms. Furthermore, Key Enabling Technologies (KETs) play a crucial role. They are building blocks of industrial competitiveness in global value chains and, as highlighted by the High-level Strategy Group on Industrial Technologies, they play a strategic role in industry, the economy and society. The updated set of KETs includes advanced materials and nanotechnology, photonics and micro- and nano-electronics, life science technologies, advanced manufacturing and processing, artificial intelligence and digital security and connectivity. The ongoing policy debates also address the conditions for scaling-up innovative and breakthrough solutions in particular by SMEs, where an analysis by the European Commission confirmed the role of Technology Infrastructures and the need for a European strategy. |
| Finland | The Government’s target is to reach an R&D expenditure-to-GDP ratio of 4% by 2030. The majority of contributions should originate from the business enterprise sector. Of all R&D financing, business R&D accounts for about two-thirds while public sector’s share is about one-third. The R&D cuts during the previous government period particularly hit Business Finland, the main innovation funding agency, which has been going through a merger and transformation. Business Finland was created in 2018 by the merger of two organizations: (i) Finpro, which offered services for internationalization, investments and tourism promotion; and, (ii) Tekes, which offered funding and networking for innovation activities. The government programme for 2019-2023 aims at creating international billion euro ecosystems that provide solutions to global societal challenges. Innovation policy should enable and support the private businesses to play the leading role in this development. This goal requires better and wider cooperation and ecosystems that engage actors from the private sector, the scientific and education community, the third sector and the public sector. Business Finland Growth Engines are an important tool for this goal. Fast growth, business renewal, new and scalable business models and digitalization remain as important goals and challenges for the private sector. The rapid development of data economy and platform-based companies necessitates new forms of data-intensive business and better data sharing/access solutions. This includes the utilization of available valuable data sources, e.g. from health sector. Both EU and national legislative changes are needed to support valuable market-based and data-intensive solutions. It has been challenging to reform firm subsidies to better support innovation and renewal. The government has to cut annual subsidies (including tax reliefs) by 100 million EUR. Innovative public procurement is an important tool to improve services, generate growth and enable the creation of reference markets. The goal is to raise innovative public procurement as a share of total procurement to 10% by the end of the parliamentary term in 2023, from its current level of about 5%. The pressures to change EU competition policy may affect the Finnish landscape where firms try to scale their businesses through innovation. A big challenge is to enable start-ups and other fast-growing firms to grow in Finland, as opposed to being bought out or relocating their functions elsewhere. The same dynamic applies for firms' R&D functions, where Finland faces toughening competition from other Research, Development and Innovation (RDI) environments. A general question is how much firms should be supported, how support should be allocated between firms of different sizes and which policy tools are most effective in encouraging private investments in RDI. |
| France | In the context of preparing a multi-year programming law of research (that should be drafted by the end of 2019, for adoption in the year 2020 and come into force in early 2021), a working group was set up to make proposals to strengthen innovation and collaborative research in France. These proposals, which were submitted to the Government in September 2019, are structured around three main fields of priority actions: i) Develop new leaders based on discoveries from public research and that will create tomorrow’s markets; ii) Significantly increase the breadth, depth and continuity of public-private, public-public and public-civil society interactions; iii) In the short term, gain significantly in simplicity, agility and speed and empower the innovation actors. Alongside this bill, the Government also launched a public consultation to prepare a 2025 Productive Pact for full employment, which includes a thematic section on technological innovations. On this topic, the ongoing work focuses on the need to foster “deep tech” innovation, to densify the industrialisation of innovation in France, and to improve the legibility of innovation public support. Independently of this bill, the Government has also reaffirmed its intention to maintain the research tax credit in its current configuration. However, and despite positive evaluations of this instrument, there are still ongoing debates about the rate of the research tax credit, as well as on the right balance between direct and indirect policy support to business R&D and innovation activities. |
| Germany | Germany has a broad range of support programmes for innovative enterprises, rather than a single activity to support business innovation and innovative entrepreneurship. An important approach of the German Federal Government is to motivate and enable especially SMEs and young enterprises/start-ups to innovate through networks and clusters and therefore to strengthen their market position. Pilot programmes like, e.g. KMU-NetC, offer additional funding for innovative, industrial demanded R&D projects with high prospects of realisation but that have high scientific and economic risks. The actual national innovation strategy (High Tech Strategy 2025) is also focusing on collaboration between research and industry. The strategy aims to further strengthen the transfer of knowledge and research results into new products and services. A further key element of the strategy is to build up an entrepreneurial culture in Germany and to improve framework conditions for startups. |
| Greece | Despite a rapid improvement in innovation performance, as depicted by the European Innovation Scoreboard 2019, Greece remains in the group of "moderate innovators" and shows a low score in competitiveness according to international benchmarks. Limited venture capital (VC) and PCT patenting activity, as well as poor linkages between enterprises and the research community have been identified as major obstacles for innovation in the country. So the continuous debate is centered on the commercialisation of research results and the promotion of knowledge-based, innovative entrepreneurship. Following the general election of July 2019, the new Government announced the establishment of two "Innovation Districts", one in Athens and one in Thessaloniki. These are public-private partnerships, aiming at attractive dynamic companies with important R&D activities, which, in cooperation with public research institutions and innovative start-ups, will promote open innovation in the country. Furthermore, innovation and digital hubs are also under consideration. To boost innovative entrepreneurship, a new VC Fund of Funds, the so-called "Equifund", was recently established. Equifund has been operational since 2018. It aims to attract private funding to all investment stages of the equity market from entrepreneurship steps (even before the early stage start-ups) up to the mature expansion of the beneficiary companies. Nine fund managers were successfully selected during 2017. EquiFund comprises three investment “windows” according to the maturity level of the business proposal: 1. The "Innovation Window", aiming at supporting investments in RTDI through commercialisation of research results. End target beneficiaries include researchers, professors, postgraduates and graduate students, as well as entrepreneurs willing to pursue their business opportunity. 2. The "Early Stage Venture Capital Window", which encompasses later stages of seed and start-up, targets SMEs or entrepreneurial activities with high growth potential and in need of funding for product development, initial marketing and/or business development support, including the assessment of the commercialisation potential of an initial concept. 3. The "Growth Window" provides for later early stage, expansion / growth capital and buy-and-build. The aggregate size of all funds has currently exceeded EUR 410M. Following an intense debate, the government decided that traditional schemes providing grants for the establishment of spin offs, spin outs and innovative star-ups would not be launched in the programming period 2014-20, to avoid competition with the Innovation Window of Equifund. However, other initiatives continue to operate, including: - The flagship Programme “Research-Create-Innovate”: funding industrial research in all types of companies, industry-academia collaborative projects, experimental development for R&D results, supporting Greek SMEs that received a "Seal of Excellence" from the Horizon 2020 SME Instrument, and job creation for highly skilled personnel in businesses. - Specific Actions for Collaborative research projects between businesses and academia in priority areas (Aquaculture, New Industrial Materials and Cultural Heritage) - Support for Innovation Clusters in priority areas. |
| Hungary | The main policy challenges consist of increasing the share of innovative businesses and building innovative capacities. This is realised by expanding co-operation both horizontally and vertically. Horizontally refers to university-based innovation ecosystems as a translational function between science and innovation. Vertically refers to the innovation value chain built around companies. Government grants and training programs help companies in technological and organisational innovation. Legislation helps companies to an easier path to become government suppliers. Thus, it is necessary to develop and strengthen complex, process-based, multi-player support systems, with a focus on scientific, economic and social embedding. The government is also committed to provide ongoing support for Intellectual Property generation and commercialization, both nationally and internationally, through various means, including RDI grant financing, state-backed VC funds, and training and incubation programs for technology intensive companies to access foreign markets. |
| Iceland | A new innovation policy for Iceland, An Innovative Iceland, was published in late 2019, and is intended to make Iceland better able to meet the challenges of the future by building a solid foundation for innovation in all areas, including the public sector. Innovation is presented not only as the basis of economic success, but as the key to solving the biggest challenges in the coming decades. The delivery of the plan is the responsibility of the Science and Technology Policy Council, devolved to relevant ministries and institutions. The three broad challenges that the new innovation report address are the 4th Industrial Revolution, Environmental Challenges, and Demographic Challenges. The strategy focuses on five pillars (see below) and under those are 70 initiatives in total to realise the following vision: “Iceland is an innovation country where willingness to innovate is built into Icelandic society, culture and business. Innovation is seen as a prerequisite for a thriving culture and human life and essential to be able to meet societal challenges as well as to ensure continued welfare and value creation in the country.” The five pillars are: I. Mind set: An attitude that is prevalent in the community towards innovation, research, development and start-up activities. The spirit of innovation in society has an impact on its ability to innovate. Innovation is to be lifted as fundamental to culture and society, well-being and value creation, through outreach, education, and increased visibility. II. Finance: Funds spent on research, development, innovation and start-up activities. The amount, source, and distribution of funds in the innovation environment has a significant impact on its scope and nature. III. Market access: The larger the market that Icelandic entrepreneurs and investors have access to for goods and services and financing, the more diverse innovation activities are likely to be able to thrive in Iceland. IV. The Regulatory framework: in the form of support agencies, legal frameworks, infrastructure and co-operation. The support environment for innovation, along with general rules of innovation and business operations, must always be competitive with the best in the world. V. Human resources available to Icelandic innovation companies. Iceland must develop and invite people who have the knowledge and skills needed to face international competition and Icelandic companies need to be able to attract specialized foreign staff to the country. The policy will be followed up by actions for improving and developing innovation support measures and the innovation ecosystem. |
| Ireland | Ireland’s third Country Specific Recommendation for 2019 highlights the need for measures to diversify the economy and improve the productivity of Irish firms, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in particular, by using more direct funding instruments to stimulate research and innovation and by reducing regulatory barriers to entrepreneurship. Future Jobs Ireland notes that significant vulnerabilities are evident in the domestic economy such as declining productivity levels in SMEs. Infrastructural constraints, skills deficits and labour availability, as well as concentrations in some sectors and markets could, unless ameliorated, impede further progress. Internationally, Brexit, growing trade protectionism and the undermining of the rules-based international trading system could threaten our future economic welfare. (https://dbei.gov.ie/en/What-We-Do/Busine...) The OECD has undertaken a review of entrepreneurship and SME growth and development in Ireland in 2018. The OECD SME and Entrepreneurship Policy in Ireland report examines how to strengthen SMEs and entrepreneurship across the economy (https://dbei.gov.ie/en/Publications/OECD...). The National Space Strategy for Enterprise (https://dbei.gov.ie/en/Publications/Nati...) will also support the success of other national strategies. Placing a focus on embracing innovation, technological change and enhancing skills, the strategy will support Ireland to achieve the ambitions of Future Jobs Ireland. |
| Israel | Government support for business innovation and innovative entrepreneurship in Israel was traditionally comprised mostly of R&D direct incentives, namely grants. This policy was very successful in increasing the national expenditure on civil R&D in recent decades. Additional policy tools such as the Yozma venture capital funds (where the government was a co-investor) and the technological incubators helped boost the tech entrepreneurship ecosystem. Today, the Israeli tech ecosystem is thriving and is enjoying a record amount of private investment in R&D and in venture capital. This raises the question whether government direct incentives for business R&D are still as relevant as they used to be. The government has created other support tools in the meantime - especially for investing in human capital (described in this survey), but legacy R&D support tools are still in place. Many acctors in the government and industry hold the opintion that government support for R&D is still critical to keep Israel's global competitive position, while other emphasize the importance of greater government focus on regulation and ease of doing business for the tech industry as a first best policy. |
| Italy | The Italian Government has adopted a set of relevant measures aimed at fostering the creation and growth of its innovative startup (Decree-Law no. 179 of 18 October 2012) and innovative SMEs’ ecosystem (Decree-Law no. 3 of 24 January 2015). An extensive portfolio of incentives was laid out to support innovative startups and SMEs at all stages of their life cycle, from incorporation to expansion and maturity. The need for policies tailored to innovative firms is justified by several public goals. The various measures aim to spur sustainable growth and enhance productivity. An innovation-driven entrepreneurial culture should be spread across the entrepreneurial ecosystem as a whole, including SMEs, large corporations, incubators and accelerators, as well as universities. The National Plan Industry 4.0 was adopted in 2016 with the purpose of encouraging and sustaining the digitalisation process of firms through the introduction of fiscal incentives (such as hyper and super depreciation) supporting the purchase of machinery 4.0 and reinforcing – through a tax credit – the level of digital skills. New measures, which are under approval in the Budget Law 2020, will give continuity to these recently introduced fiscal incentives, with the novelty of a wider time horizon. Following the approach of the 2019 Budget Law, the measures will continue to favour particularly micro and small firms. Special attention will be given to innovation in value chains with relation to new technologies and digitalisation. |
| Japan | The number of R&D-driven startups is increasing and expanding globally. In Japan as well, it is necessary to develop an environment in which the potential of human resources with an entrepreneurial spirit can be maximized, and to promote economic and social structural reform in an integrated manner through innovation in government projects and systems, including public procurement. To achieve this, it is necessary to thoroughly strengthen the start-up environment by involving cities, universities, and other institutions, in educating world-class entrepreneurs and in drastically strengthening the accelerator function. For example, policies focusing on young start-ups are being promoted to strengthen the start-up ecosystems centred on universities and to promote entrepreneurial education. In addition, while promoting open innovation with large companies, the government will discover promising start-ups in rural areas and those that aim to capture overseas markets from the very beginning (Born Global). There is also need to review government procurement practices to encourage the development and introduction of advanced technologies and investment in the private sector. |
| Kazakhstan | In 2018, the Council for Technological Policy of the Ministry of Digital Development, Innovations and Aerospace Industry (MDDIAI) approved the methods for developing technology policy in sectors of economy. Research projects are implemented through grant and programme-oriented funding within the priority areas for science development approved by the Higher Scientific and Technical Commission. The priorities focus on contributing to the country's social, scientific, technical and industrial development and achieving corresponding national social and economic goals. The Council also established a Roadmap for Technological Development in the area of new materials. The Higher Scientific and Technical Commission under the Kazakh Government has approved seven priorities for science development for 2018-2020: (i) Rational use of natural resources; (ii) Energy and engineering; (iii) ICT, space technologies, natural sciences; (iv) Life and health sciences; (v) Agriculture; (vi) National Security; (vii) Education. The main ongoing issues are: - structuring stable relationships between industry actors, the private sector, academic communities and government; - cooperating with international organizations in the area of technology-intensive entrepreneurship; - increasing commercialization of research projects' results (applied science); - stimulating the development of advanced technologies in economic sectors; - providing consulting services and other forms of support for technology extension; - establishing and supporting the ecosystem of business incubators and accelerators as well as supporting innovations in early stages of financing; - stimulating the early venture capital funding of innovative projects and arranging external financing for developing technological innovations geared towards economic growth. |
| Korea | The government has proposed "to promote startups and encourage innovation" and "to create a sound environment for the growth of SMEs" as a high priority in the national STI policy agenda. Specifically, this policy agenda aims to: 1) enact the Venture Investment Promotion Act (tentatively named), 2) expand the size of venture investment to the level of advanced economies, 3) actively support innovative startups by excellent entrepreneurs with technologic expertise, 4) remove obstacles to make another leap forward, and 5) double the support for SMEs' R&D activities, including financial assistance and non-monetary benefits (e.g. R&D tax incentives, research loans, etc.). Although most agree on these policy directions, a debate remains on how to develop and implement appropriate and effective policy measures. |
| Latvia | Future plans for innovation support relate to developing strategic value chain ecosystems within the specific areas that have showed the highest development and competitiveness potential both locally and internationally. The development of such ecosystems will be supported by the Ministry of Economics, while the Ministry of Education and Science will be responsible for fostering research (in universities and research institutions) and producing highly talented specialists (through higher education and vocational education). All major policies are currently being redeveloped: - The Ministry of Economics is working on the development of a national industrial policy for 2021-2027 and Smart specialisation strategy. The main focus will be the specialisation of key national industries and the development of strategic value chain ecosystems within each of them. As new competitive advantages emerge, a distinct business model shift is needed, moving from short-term profitability to long-term productivity and robust sustainable profitability, as well as cross-industry partnerships. - The Ministry of Education and Science is working on developing Guidelines on Science and Research policy for 2021-2027. In parallel, a new National development plan is being developed. |
| Lithuania | A key priority of the Ministry of Economy and Innovation is the development of the start-up ecosystem in Lithuania. For 2020 the aim is to achieve 1000 start-ups. Currently, the number of start-ups has already reached over 900 in Lithuania. To achieve this, a favourable business environment will be created with the following measures, among others: - Improving procedures of the “Start-up Visa” program by adjusting the evaluation procedure. - Creating the “Start-up Employee Visa” procedure to attract, retain and integrate foreign talents. - Launching an information infrastructure as a “one-stop shop” providing efficient and effective services to highly qualified specialists and at least in two foreign languages (English and Russian). - Increasing “Soft Landing” services of that provide advice for start-up founders, help foreign start-ups move to Lithuania and educate futurepreneurs and other actors in the ecosystem. - Motivating existing start-ups employees and attracting new ones by promoting options for shares acquisition (i.e., when receiving or acquiring shares after 3 years, neither personal income tax nor social security contributions are required). - Establishing two business incubators of the Nuclear Research Centre (CERN) in Vilnius and Kaunas. - Streamlining and facilitating technology licensing procedures. - Establishing regulatory sandboxes, accelerators and incubators for Fintec |
| Luxembourg | This text comes from the 2017 STIP Survey: One of the main policy questions related to business innovation concerns how to stimulate business expenditure on research and development (BERD), as well as retain existing research activities in Luxembourg and attract new ones. Official statistics show an overall decrease in BERD. While this owes in part to changes in the methodology for measuring BERD, it also stems from changes in structural patterns (bearing in mind that most research and development [R&D]-performing firms in Luxembourg are legally headquartered abroad). Some players have downsized their activities, while several sectors (e.g. finance and logistics) are traditionally not very active in research. For the manufacturing sectors, on the other hand, the objective is to either maintain or increase the current levels of R&D spending. This debate is actually an ongoing discussion with the private sector, with the aim of making it easier for firms to gain access to highly qualified staff and academic research capacity. Given the limited array of policy options, the goal is to strengthen the private sector’s engagement in R&D activities in Luxembourg, rather than relying solely on incentives and policy instruments. The economy is currently heavily dependent on the finance sector and associated industries. In the medium term, a major policy goal is to step up economic diversification by promoting four key sectors: space, logistics, information and communication technologies, and biotechnology. |
| Malta | A number of measures are available for business support to innovation and these remain ongoing. There is an increased drive towards the adoption of new enabling technologies, to better support innovation across a wide range of business sectors, guided by the National Blockchain Strategy, the National AI Strategy, as well as the Smart Specialisation thematic areas within the National R&I Strategy 2014-2020. A new agency, Tech.mt was set up in 2019 with the aim to give local tech companies the opportunity to showcase their work, expose tech professionals to innovative technology, and drive academic research. It will also mentor and coach business development for tech companies. |
| Mexico | This text comes from the 2017 STIP Survey: The main policy debates revolve around finding ways to encourage firms and entrepreneurs to invest in science, research and innovation activities, given that the Mexican Government remains the main funder of research and development (R&D) in the country. As a way to improve competitiveness, the Government has in recent years established business R&D grants and tax credits to encourage large and small firms to invest in R&D. |
| Morocco | This text comes from the 2017 STIP Survey: The main policy debates around government support for business innovation and entrepreneurship focus on socio-economic issues, including energy efficiency and renewable energies; environmental protection and sustainable development; job creation and unemployment reduction. The Moroccan energy market has grown at an increasingly dynamic pace and is progressively opening up to private investment, particularly in renewable energy and energy efficiency. A national energy strategy was launched in 2009. Several institutions were established to implement this strategy, and foster energy-related R&D and innovation, including: i) the Moroccan Agency for Solar Energy; ii) the Ouarzazate Solar Power Station (also called Noor Power Station); iii) the Institute for Research in Solar Energy and Renewable Energies; iv) Solar Cluster, an association representing 260 enterprises and actors in the solar energy sector; and v) Poles of competences in energy, a national network of research laboratories from various universities and research centres. The measures also include funding dozens of research and innovation projects on renewable energy and energy efficiency. Like many developing countries, Morocco faces a set of environmental constraints (water stress, land degradation, overly strong energy dependence, vulnerability to climate change, various types of pollution). It has a limited number of economic-growth and social-development policies aiming to create jobs, and reduce social and spatial disparities. A shift in the country’s economic modelling in favour of a green and inclusive economy, driven by the private sector and able to create jobs, reduce poverty and curtail territorial-development imbalances, is required to tackle these issues. In 2012, Morocco adopted a National Charter for Environment and Sustainable Development. The Charter aims to boost sustainable socio-economic development by protecting natural resources, reducing emissions and energy costs, creating jobs, increasing economic opportunity, and developing an innovative entrepreneurship ecosystem. Many instruments support the Charter’s implementation by all national public and private stakeholders, including universities and research centres. |
| Netherlands | There are a number of ongoing policy debates, including: 1. the regulation of new forms of financing for innovation, such as crowdsourcing. New, overly-strict regulation could possibly have a negative effect on the growth of such initiatives, which could be a welcome addition to the current financing landscape. However, excesses should also be avoided. 2. how can the Netherlands ensure that transition-oriented firms – in particular those that fall within the government’s mission-oriented policy – can be financed? What role does this encompass for existing initiatives that aim to increase the access to finance for innovative entrepreneurs? Entrepreneurship in education is now well-established, and each university offers related courses to its students. The same goes for many secondary schools, where business plan contests, secondments in business, boot camps, and getting investment ready are already in place. For start-ups and scale-ups, the NL has a special agency operating at arm's length: StartupDelta, renamed TechLeap in 2019. Its focus is on helping those starting or scaling-up a business, linking them to investors, and offering business opportunities, including soft landing places abroad, given the small size of the Dutch market. To help SMEs pick up new knowhow, the government has set up tens of field labs. They offer expensive equipment accessible to SMEs for testing through small scale production, with coaching and training, e.g. for 3-D printing, handling composite materials, manufacturing integrated circuits, etc. Field labs also exist in agriculture (proeftuinen, pilot gardens) for experimenting with, for example, new ways to cultivate the soil, grow new crops, etc. |
| New Zealand | There continues to be debate within New Zealand about how to raise levels of investment in R&D by the private sector. This will be critical if the Government is to make progress towards its target of increasing R&D expenditure as a whole to 2% of GDP by 2027. This was partly the rationale behind the introduction of a new R&D Tax Incentive which replaced a previous system of R&D Growth Grants. One option was to continue with administering grants (generally favoured by those firms already receiving these) – however the new policy was specifically designed with the aim of widening the reach of government support for firms doing R&D – whereas under the grant scheme around 300 New Zealand businesses were accessing support, under the Tax Incentive we envisage that 2000 – 3000 businesses could be eligible to claim the credit. The introduction of the tax incentive was underpinned by analysis that helped inform the debate by showing that businesses typically under invest in R&D because they cannot completely secure all of the benefits it brings, and therefore engagement by government can incentivise investment that might otherwise not happen – and by doing so we are able to capture a wider set of “spillovers” that benefit the wider economy as well as society more generally. The debate was also influenced by the fact that R&D tax incentives are a major tool for promoting business R&D globally, with most countries across the OECD operating them in some way. Because the tax system is accessed universally, we were able to put in place legislation that sets out transparent rules-based criteria to maximise certainty for businesses and encourage long-term planning. The debate has largely been settled following introduction of the new scheme from April 2019, however there has been some ongoing discussion about how to ensure there is equal treatment of firms conducting R&D some of which are profitable, and others which still remain pre-profit. The main policy considerations here are around how we balance the design of a scheme that permits maximum support to all businesses doing R&D, against a need to minimise opportunities for abuse which would damage the integrity of the tax system. |
| Norway | The discussion on research and development intensity in Norway has changed over the last few years, as both total R&D expenditure and R&D intensity have increased strongly. The current government came into power in 2013 and has prioritised support to both public and private R&D. As a share of GDP, total R&D has increased from 1.65 % of GDP in 2013 to 2.09 % in 2017. A sizeable and sustained part of this growth has taken place in business R&D (from about 0.87 % of GDP in 2013 to 1.10 % in 2017). Public support to business R&D has been increased. The approach has consisted of making the R&D tax-incentive (Skattefunn) more generous and increasing allocations to competitive R&D grants. R&D grants have been increased both through a broad, thematically neutral competitive programme and in areas of particular strategic interest for Norway. In addition, several measures to strengthen entrepreneurship policy has been implemented. Entrepreneurship policies and the investment fund approach have been strengthened. Following a green paper on access to capital in 2018 (The Capital Access Commission, Official Norwegian Report NOU 2018:5) and a public consultation process, a wide set of issues including entrepreneurship funding, SME financing and information problems, particularly using digital registers and meeting places have been raised. The government has suggested moving several existing tasks to fewer existing institutions while going forward with more seed capital measures. Among these, a green investment fund aimed at promising new businesses was launched early in 2019. Several voices have argued that the number of schemes and actors has made the gate to the system complicated to pass. Against this backdrop, the government launched a comprehensive review of agency structure and support for business innovation in 2018. The review is aiming at increased user friendliness by defining roles and clearing up overlaps. At the same time, a more coherent setup between the local, regional, national and international level will be assessed, alongside an analysis of how to improve efficiency in administration and governance. |
| Peru | This text comes from the 2017 STIP Survey: Peru is seeking to promote technological innovation. Competitive funds have been created to support entrepreneurship, business incubators and start-ups. Law No. 30309, adopted in 2015, grants tax benefits to companies that engage in STI activities, develop technologies and generate technological innovation, with the approval of CONCYTEC. The Law is being evaluated to determine whether the results have a macroeconomic impact in terms of generating innovation. The Ministry of Production, through the National Programme of Innovation for Competitiveness and Productivity (Innovate Peru), and CONCYTEC (through CIENCIACTIVA) seek to increase business productivity by strengthening the capabilities of innovation actors (companies, entrepreneurs and support entities), and facilitating the relationships among them. Its specific objectives are to: 1) increase innovation in business-production processes; 2) promote innovative entrepreneurship; and 3) facilitate companies’ absorption and adaptation of technologies. Mechanisms to strengthen the Network of Technological Innovation Centres (CITEs) are also being discussed. They include increasing the human resources of CITEs and establishing impact-analysis protocols that make it possible to specify the criteria for deciding the location and activities of CITEs, as identified in the United Nations Industrial Development Organization report (https://isid.unido.org/files/Peru/PCP_Pe...). |
| Poland | In recent years, many public instruments have been set up in Poland to support companies introducing innovations. Enterprises can obtain grants for R&D expenditures and for implementing the results of these investments. Grants with the highest budgets, mainly EU co-financed support programs, offer grants through an open competition to all companies meeting established criteria. There are also sectoral programs dedicated to companies from industries with the highest growth potential (representing national smart specialisations). A large start-up support program called “Start in Poland” includes various types of venture capital funds and accelerators that offer support for the development of young innovative companies. The introduction of tax reliefs for companies conducting R&D and the so-called IP Box (preferential tax rate for income from intellectual property rights) proved to be an attractive incentive for enterprises. The number of enterprises profiting from these tax reliefs is increasing every year. Apart from different forms of financial support, public agencies and business support institutions provide trainings and advisory services to innovative companies. In this context it is worth noting that a new public foundation, the Industry of the Future Platform, has been established to support Polish enterprises in the digital transformation towards industry 4.0. As a result of these sorts of support, together with stable economic growth, business expenditure in R&D (BERD) is steadily growing, reaching 66% of GERD in 2018. However, increasing the number of enterprises conducting R&D and implementing innovative solutions remains a challenge. While small companies dominate the Polish economy, they are characterised by low productivity level and low propensity to implement innovations. Moreover, the poor quality of cooperation between the business sector and the science sector also remains a problem. Inventions arising at universities and research institutes are rarely commercialised. Investment funds have difficulties finding young innovative companies or research teams that may become the object of investment. Taking into account the above conditions, the public debate on support for innovative companies currently focuses on the following topics: - Increasing the number of enterprises introducing innovations; - Encouraging enterprises to increase their use of the public research system and strengthening cooperation between the science and industry; - Simplifying existing support instruments to make them more attractive to companies; - Determining the level (national or regional) whereby support for innovative companies is more effective; - Determining the type of support for enterprises that is more effective (e.g. horizontal tax reliefs, grants or support through investment funds); - Preparing enterprises for the challenges related to the digital revolution and climate change; - Having the state or public bodies address emerging social challenges through the coordination and implementation of innovative solutions. |
| Portugal | The main debates regarding business innovation and innovative entrepreneurship are still focused on (i) the promotion of innovation as a factor of economic competitiveness and internationalization of Portuguese companies, valuing knowledge-based investment, attracting high tech foreign direct investment (FDI) and promoting qualified employment and entrepreneurship; (ii) the digital transformation and the challenges for the Portuguese companies, and (iii) the promotion of an environment supporting creative and knowledge-based entrepreneurship. Core concerns regarding entrepreneurship and internationalization include the creation of new enterprises with innovation potential and value added, triggering high quality employment and closer links to investment promoters, early detection of projects and enterprises, as well as access to emergent markets and stronger capture of high tech related FDI (i.e. “Programme Internacionalizar”). The 2018-2030 Technological and Business Innovation Strategy for Portugal further substantiates this debate, complementing the Start-Up Portugal Strategy and Industry 4.0. The Interface Program has also addressed the capacitation of national enterprises for international and national higher profiles. In this area, Portugal Ventures, a public-private initiative, has a pivotal role in providing risk capital, and even in promoting the involvement of other business angels. Sustainable employment has been addressed in several perspectives: at the entrepreneurial level in the STARTUP Portugal Strategy, emphasising training for entrepreneurs; at the scientific level the Programme for Scientific Employment, which was extensively debated in the Parliament; and, at a professional level, initiatives such as Professional Technical Higher Courses (TESPs) and “Young Technicians for Industry”, aiming at “innovation readiness”, i.e. attracting and keeping talents in the system at an overall critical mass for a quicker absorption of new technologies and innovations. Also worth highlighting are the active creation of Collaborative Laboratories (CoLABS) and the Programme for Technology Interface Centre (CIT´s), both intermediary institutions benefitting from specific support to recruit highly qualified human resources. Concerning the digital transition, Phase II of Industry i4.0 was broadly discussed, focusing on accelerating the adoption of this agenda by the business fabric, promoting national technological suppliers as i4.0 players, and turning Portugal into an attractive pole for i4.0 investment. CAPACITAR is a programme led by the Ministry of Economy that encompasses the national activities Industry 4.0 (i.4.0) and INCODE 4.0 (for digital competences), which aim at qualifying people and organisations for the challenges of 4th industrial revolution. As part of the CAPACITAR Programme, the Portugal INCoDe.2030 aims to bridge the digital gap and to stimulate employability. Capacity building as a driver for Public Procurement, leading to quality investment was broadly discussed in national and international conferences involving all relevant stakeholders including entrepreneurs, policy makers, legislators, universities, researchers and central, regional and local administration bodies, among others. The impact on innovation of the recently issued Code for (DL 111-B/2017, 31 August) gathered attention in particular. The investment in Portugal by different large technology-based multinationals involving recruitment of highly qualified human resources, provide examples of quality and innovative investment. The annual Initiative Web Summit promotes interactions within the national and international research and innovation ecosystem, inspiring new entrepreneurs and foreign investors, and leading to business innovation and firms internationalization towards digital transition. |
| Romania | Debates primarily focus on regional-national smart specialization strategic visions, involving Romania’s eight regions and the relevant ministries. Discussions have focused mainly on finding sectors with strong potential for smart specialization potential. A preliminary list includes: creative industries, Information and Communication Technologies, bio-economy / biotechnologies, pharma, automotive, naval Industry, metallurgy, electronics). Another theme concerns the factors that hinder innovation, including (i) public funding for R&D and for innovation based on R&D, (ii) education and human resources (scientific and entrepreneurial), (iii) legal and fiscal framework, and (iv) collaboration for R&D and innovation and technology transfer. Structural deficiencies in markets have been identified with large gaps in competitiveness and technological readiness of local companies compared to the main EU competitors in most sectors, especially in agriculture. The lack of an adequate transport infrastructure affects the automotive sector. Stakeholders consider this the most serious handicap of the Romanian industry in terms of competitiveness on the European market. In addition to the transport infrastructure, another major bottleneck is the lack of a clear vision for the country’s economic development. |
| Russian Federation | The major national goal has been set within the President's Decree of 7 May 2018 No 204 to accelerate technology development of the Russian economy and to increase the share of enterprises engaged in technological innovation up to 50%. Key policy initiatives in this domain include the National Technology Initiative aimed at opening new innovative markets, the new National Project "Labour Productivity and Employment Support", which provides indirect support of organisational and technological innovations at industrial enterprises, and the National Programme "Digital Economy". The latter provides a number of new grants and subsidies to support innovative SMEs within the IT sector. The President’s Decree has given new impetus to several ongoing activities. In particular, the Foundation for Assistance to Small Innovative Enterprises has scaled up support for projects aimed at commercializing scientific results, as well as for projects commissioned by an industrial partner. The Internet Initiatives Development Fund has stepped up its efforts to accelerate high-tech business and attract seed investment. |
| Slovak Republic | Firms face numerous barriers that constrain their propensity to innovate, including cost based factors, information deficits, and market factors, including a lack of demand. Cost based factors, such as insufficient resources within the enterprise or the relatively high costs of innovation in relation to an enterprise’s assets are among the main important factors limiting the possibilities of further innovation in Slovakian innovative companies. Innovative companies in Slovakia are also hindered by market factors, including the presence of incumbents and volatility in the demand for innovative products and services. A lack of qualified workers can also be to a certain extent a barrier to innovation, though this problem is hardly unique to Slovakia. Information deficits (e.g. on markets or technologies) is a more minor barrier and comparable to the situation in reference countries. Innovative companies use a lot of external information sources, notably business and technical publications. This bias provides insights on the character of Slovakia’s innovative environment, including the intensity of relations between innovative companies and other actors in the innovation system. Own R&D is not the only source of business innovations. Companies can innovate by buying machinery, equipment and software, external knowledge, or external R&D. As a technologically converging economy, Slovakia prioritises the purchase of finished technologies/knowledge in the form of acquisition of machinery, equipment and software. The share of knowledge-intensive services in Slovakia’s GDP and exports compared to other countries is very low, and the use of innovative processes in the areas of services, creative industries and the social sphere has only recently started. Another barrier is public procurement, which does not contribute to increasing the innovation intensity of the economy. The abovementioned constraints imply the need for policy measures that: - interlink innovation actors, - increase the technological level of companies, - increase the quality and availability of human resources, - enable the funding of development activities, and - use public procurement as a tool supporting innovation in the econom |
| Slovenia | The goal of Slovenia's Development Strategy is to make the transition to a highly productive economy. This requires strengthening firm support in a globalised context, e.g. embedding companies within global value chains. Debates are underway to design and coordinate new strategies to integrate science, R&D, technology and innovation and economic policy. In the last two years, the government support to business innovation and innovative entrepreneurship was debated partly within the preparation of the new law for research and innovation. Debates included relevant stakeholders including universities, research institutes, trade unions, research agencies, ministries responsible for science and economy, chambers of commerce and young researchers, who stressed the necessity of consistent STI policy governance, currently a responsibility shared by two different ministries. |
| South Africa | As part of its focus to promote an enabling environment for innovation in South Africa, the new White Paper on Science, Technology and Innovation adopted a broader conceptualization of innovation beyond R&D. To enhance policy coherence and programme coordination in the NSI, it also adopted a “whole-of-society” approach to innovation. These policy shifts provide the context for a policy interrogation of how best to increase support for and encourage collaboration with the business sector in STI. Accordingly, the policy debate regarding support for the business sector focused on themes such as supporting R&D needs and targeted technology development and deployment supporting firms. Introducing SME-specific support is also regarded as a priority, whilst policy debates perhaps specific to the South African economic context relate to the revitalization of the role of State Owned Enterprises in innovation and the participation of the country in global value chains. Other policy questions considered by Government in order to boost innovation in firms and innovative entrepreneurship include how best to support innovation for social and grassroots innovation, how to use public procurement as a vehicle to further innovation and the branding of South Africa as an innovative country to attract foreign investment. Also, progress has been made in establishing the Small Business and Innovation Fund. The injection of ZAR 1 billion into the small business and innovation space to de-risk the early stages of business and technology development will make these companies more attractive to large investors for scale-up. |
| Spain | The central themes that have dominated the debate on government support for business innovation in the past two years in Spain include: a) The relevance of investing in innovation activities to foster the productivity of Spanish firms. The underinvestment of business expenditure in innovation is hampering productivity, and there is an urgent need to improve the input and output additionality of public support programmes (direct and indirect) for R&D and other innovation activities. b) The changing innovation dynamics calls for more innovative policy-making responses, with more directionality of government support for business innovation. In particular, the debate is on the need to foster the development of digital “general purpose technologies” to tackle societal challenges. c) Under the Spanish State Plan for RDI 2017-2020, there has been a revision exercise of the public procurement procedures for innovation, to increase their effectiveness and to bring greater clarity and transparency for both procurers and suppliers. The improvement in these administration procedures has allowed more than 100 million euros of the 301 million that constituted the financial endowment of the FID Line (Promotion of Innovation from the Demand for the Innovative Public Procurement) for the 2014-2020 programming period to be committed in the first 10 months of 2019 alone. |
| Sweden | Start-ups and SME are strategically important agents for an experimentally-organised economy. The government is trying to find synergies between large and small enterprises by creating "Innovation hubs" (ecosystems of large multinational enterprises and innovative startups), which consist of incubators and accelerators that can be used by all types of companies. The government provides several instruments to foster such platforms for cooperation, innovation grants for startups being one such example. There are issues, however, around the governance, coordination and synergies between different agencies and initiatives, including EU funding. While the overarching aim of the innovation hubs is to facilitate contacts between university research and companies, they can also include other activities such as facilitating access to university R&D by SMEs. |
| Switzerland | This text comes from the 2017 STIP Survey: In light of international discussions on the taxation of holding firms, Switzerland has committed to adjusting its tax system. A first proposal was rejected by public vote. A new proposal aiming to introduce internationally accepted instruments was adopted in 2019. The main objective of the new fiscal measures is to promote innovation. For example, income from patents and similar rights would be taxed at a lower rate, thanks to a patent box. A deduction would be granted for research and development (R&D) that is higher than the actual expenditure on R&D. Furthermore, political initiatives (mainly emanating from members of the Swiss Parliament) are frequently launched to strengthen the Federal government’s innovation promotion. In this context, the national innovation agency (the Commission for Technology and Innovation) has been transformed into a new entity, operating under the name Innosuisse since January 2018. Innosuisse possesses greater flexibility in using funding instruments to promote research-based innovation, knowledge and technology transfer, and support for start-ups. It also benefits from greater international exposure through participation in European innovation programmes, such as EUREKA. At the same time, co-ordination and co-operation with regional actors is being enhanced, to exploit synergies. |
| Thailand | In 2017, Thai R&D expenditures in the private sector topped a record high of 123.94 billion THB (3.6 billion EUR), accounting for 80% of the country’s gross expenditures on R&D (GERD). Innovation in Thailand’s private sector is very much on the rise, as manifested in the growth in R&D expenditure by 50% over a one-year period (from 82.70 billion THB or 2.4 billion EUR in 2016 to 123.94 billion THB or 3.6 billion EUR in 2017). This could be partly attributed to government policy and measures boosting innovation in firms such as the 300% tax deduction for R&D expenses, the Innovation and Technology Assistance Program (ITAP), the start-up voucher program and the Technology and Innovation Entrepreneurship Development Fund (TED Fund). The “Thai Innovation List” is also an effective program incentivizing innovation in firms containing innovations (products and services) entitled to fast-track treatment in government procurement processes. Innovative products and services submitted by companies are verified for their origination from R&D performed in Thailand and evaluated for the quality by a committee. Innovations passing evaluation are published in the Budget Bureau’s “Thai Innovation List” for a maximum of 8 years. Among new programs launched in recent years by the Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation (MHESI) include: (i) the “Open Innovation Project” which supports startups and SMEs to acquire technologies and further develop into commercialized products; (ii) a product-based incentive program; (iii) the SMEs capacity building program; and, (iv) the economic zone for innovation. The Board of Investment of Thailand rolled out a tax incentive program for new high-skilled, STEM employments between 2019-2020, offering a 150% tax deduction to firms that hire new high-skilled, STEM job positions to enhance their productivity and innovative capability. Start-ups are considered the primary engine to drive the economy, especially an innovation-based economy. Recognizing that access to funding is one of the critical elements of start-ups, the government has launched a cooperation program with the World Business Angels Investment Forum (WBAF) in August 2019 with an establishment of WBAF Thailand Country Office. The office’s prime mission is to develop a robust local angel investment community for the Thai start-up ecosystem, connecting it with world capital markets and implementing capacity building program to enhance skills and expertise of entrepreneurs and investors. This initiative also enables Thai angel investors and aspiring entrepreneurs to have more opportunities to connect with global leaders in equity and capital markets. A new type of visa called Smart Visa was also introduced in 2018 to attract foreign investors, executives and startups entrepreneurs to invest in the targeted industries Thailand. In term of public research and infrastructure supporting industry, the National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA) announced its research strategy for 2019 onwards, aiming at enhancing competitiveness of Thai industry. NSTDA now directs its focus to develop technologies in the following areas: (1) Precision Agriculture, (2) Food & Feed, (3) Biochemicals, (4) Cosmeceuticals, (5) Biopharmaceuticals, (6) Precision Medicine, (7) Medical Devices & Implants, (8) Dual-use Defense, (9) Mobility & Logistics and (10) Energy. The strategy also places emphasis on infrastructure in the forms of National Science and Technology Infrastructure (NSTI) to support R&D and a National Quality Infrastructure (NQI) to provide testing and consultancy services to attend the growing demand for high quality product testing in the Thai industry. Five NSTI centers were established in 2018, namely National Biobank of Thailand, National Omics Center, Center for Cyber-Physical Systems, NSTDA Supercomputer Center, and Technology and Informatics Institute for Sustainability – all based at the Thailand Science Park. NQI currently comprises Electrical and Electronic Products Testing Centre (PTEC), NSTDA Characterization and Testing Service Center (NCTC), Industrial Ceramic and Houseware Product Testing Center (CTEC) and Design & Engineering Consulting Service Center (DECC). |
| Turkey | Turkey has developed new policies to increase the country’s global competitiveness and to become more independent economically and technologically. These policies are structured under the National Technology Move (NTM) approach, which proved recently to be successful in the defence industry as local companies have gained important technological capabilities and gained significantly in cost-effectiveness. This approach will be extended to other industries. Turkey has established R&D infrastructure for NTM with 207 universities, nearly 1 200 R&D centres, over 350 design centres, 84 technology development centres, 153 000 R&D personnel and 112 000 researchers. As seen in global examples, technology movements are successful when output-oriented, university-industry cooperations are established. For this purpose, the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBITAK) evaluated universities’ academic capabilities according to internationally accepted criteria in 120 focus technology areas. It is considered significant to create awareness of these capabilities in the industry sector to create fruitful partnerships. The NTM will also build awareness of the significance of technological development in citizens of all ages. Recently, transformation of government RDI supports a more output and impact-oriented structure by improving evaluation and monitoring system. Although evaluation of the proposed RDI projects are realized by the assessment of many criteria including commercialization of the project results; projects should be more thoroughly monitored after the funding period in terms of value created by employment, tax, income, exports etc. Accordingly, as indicated in 11th Development Plan, public funds for RDI will be subjected to impact assessments. In the NDP (2019-2023), an industry-oriented strategy was adopted to increase competitive production and productivity. In this context, a sectoral and conceptual prioritization approach has been developed to accelerate the technological transformation that stimulates productivity growth. In particular, the digital transformation of the manufacturing industry is considered to be critical. To this end, the NPD will launch the Model Factory (SME Competence Centre) Consultancy Support Program to increase the efficiency of SMEs and contribute to their digital transformation. The strategy also emphasises public procurement that is oriented towards innovation and technology transfer. In Turkey, technoparks are one of the primary policy instruments to support innovative entrepreneurs. During the NDP’s 2019-2023 period, the institutional capacities of technoparks and technology transfer offices will be improved. The following mid- and high-tech sectors are prioritised by the NDP: the chemical industry, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, electronics, machine and electrical equipment, the automotive industry and rail systems. The following technologies are prioritised: artificial intelligence, internet of things, augmented reality, big data, cyber security, energy storage, advanced materials, robotics, micro and nano-electromechanical systems (MEMS/NEMS), biotechnology, quantum technologies, and additive manufacturing. |
| United Kingdom | The UK government’s Industrial Strategy, published in 2017, set out a framework to drive improvements in UK productivity. This included long-term commitments under five foundations of productivity including Ideas, in which the ambition was set for the UK to become the world’s most innovative economy, and the Business Environment, which set an ambition for the UK to become the best place in the world to start and grow a business. In addition to these five foundations, the Industrial Strategy also established a series of Grand Challenges to tackle global issues through which the UK could be at the forefront of major industries of the future. It also included the commitment to raising R&D intensity to 2.4% of GDP by 2027 and 3% in the longer term. Providing the means of supporting business-led R&D and innovation, and innovative entrepreneurship are components in achieving that target. The UK is supporting firms to innovate across a wide range of measures, including the publication in June 2019 of the White Paper on Regulation for the Fourth Industrial Revolution, which sets out the UK government’s plans to ensure that the UK’s regulatory system can seize the opportunities of—and meet the challenges posed by—the emerging technologies and disruptive business models that characterise the Fourth Industrial Revolution. The importance of national research infrastructures is clear in supporting business innovation and R&D. UK Research and Innovation completed a landscape analysis of UK national research infrastructures and found that over three quarters of those surveyed report that they work with business. Published in November 2019, UKRI’s companion report into “The UK’s research and innovation infrastructure: opportunities to grow our capability” has set out perspectives on boosting this capacity in pursuit of growing national R&D. A review of the role and capability of government in science and engineering was carried out by the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, and published in November 2019. How government works with private sector innovators, and the role of public assets such as public laboratories in supporting science, research and innovation, were the subject of recommendations that inform this wider ongoing debate. Addressing the regional imbalance in the spread of R&D and innovation is an ongoing policy objective. The Science and Innovation Audits, published in waves between 2017 and 2019 – led by consortia of business, universities and Local Enterprise Partnerships in England and relevant agencies in the devolved nations – are revealing distinct local and regional strengths and opportunities for collaboration across the UK. |
| United States | This text comes from the 2017 STIP Survey: In March 2017, President Trump established the White House Office of American Innovation (OAI), whose goal is to develop policies and plans that improve government services, as well as launch initiatives focusing on innovation. Three months later, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and OAI co-hosted Technology Week, which brought top technology executives to the White House for discussions with the US President and senior administration officials. As part of Technology Week, OSTP hosted the American Leadership in Emerging Technology summit, working with industry leaders to identify barriers to developing technologies in the United States. |