High Level Segment
Geneva, 1st July 2013
Soumitra Dutta
Anne and Elmer Lindseth Dean,
Professor of Management, Samuel
Curtis Johnson Graduate School of
Management, Cornell University
Bruno Lanvin
Executive Director, European
Competitiveness Initiative, INSEAD
A tool for action around 84 metrics
The GII is a multi-stakeholder effort
Co-published by Cornell
University, INSEAD and WIPO
Four Knowledge Partners: Booz &
Company, the Confederation of
Indian Industry, du, and Huawei
Independent statistical audit by
the Joint Research Centre of the
European Commission
International advisory board
GII 2013 – Main results
•
•
•
•
Innovation is a global game
An innovation divide persists
Local dynamics are key
Policy implications emerge
GII 2013 rankings – Top 10
Input Sub-Index
Output Sub-Index
GII
Efficiency Ratio
1.
Singapore
1.
Switzerland
1.
Mali
1.
Switzerland
2.
Hong Kong
(China)
United States of
America
2.
3.
Netherlands
Sweden
2.
3.
Moldova, Rep.
Guinea
2.
3.
Sweden
United Kingdom
4.
5.
United Kingdom
Malta
4.
5.
Malta
Swaziland
4.
5.
6.
7.
Luxembourg
Iceland
6.
7.
Indonesia
Nigeria
Netherlands
United States of
America
8.
9.
Finland
Israel
8.
9.
Kuwait
Costa Rica
6.
7.
Finland
Hong Kong (China)
8.
9.
Singapore
Denmark
3.
4.
5.
United Kingdom
Sweden
6.
7.
Finland
Switzerland
8.
9.
Denmark
Canada
10. Netherlands
10. Germany
10. Venezuela,
Bolivarian Rep.
10. Ireland
Mapping the GII rankings
is not the whole story
The local dynamics of innovation
o
Despite the economic crisis, innovation is alive and well. Research and development spending
levels are surpassing 2008 levels in most countries.
o
The theme of the GII 2013 is on ‘the local dynamics of innovation’. Seven analytical chapters shed
light on the factors leading to the excellence of innovation hubs, the role of local ‘champions, the
interaction of clusters with local, inter-regional, and global networks and value chains, with
examples from India, Uruguay, the Middle East and Northern Africa, and Europe, among others.
o
Local dynamics are bustling in established hubs such as Baden-Württemberg in Germany, the
Capital Region of the Republic of Korea, Guangdong Province in China, Stredni Cechy in the Czech
Republic, the Mumbai region in India, Tel Aviv in Israel, São Paulo in Brazil, etc.
o
The report signals a shift from the tendency to duplicate successful initiatives. Original innovation
ecosystem are thriving around the world.
o
In New York City, Cornell University and the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology were invited
to set up the NYC Tech Campus on Roosevelt Island, aimed at attracting a new talent pool, lead to
innovation, and impact the economy of the surrounding region.
A benchmark for
policymakers
Measuring innovation is a
moving target.
The GII helps identify
targeted policies, good
practices, and other levers to
foster innovation.
Country profiles include
strengths and weaknesses.
The GII rankings attract media
attention, but they are not
the main part of the GII.
A persistent
innovation divide
Striking pattern of
stability at the top.
Switzerland comes 1st
and Sweden 2nd since
2011. The top 10 or top
25 might swap rankings,
but not a single country
moved in or out this
year.
Rankings remain
strongly correlated with
income levels.
Some regional gaps
have been reduced
Median ranks in Human
capital and research, and
Infrastructure present the
expected shape, but some
gaps have been bridged in
the remaining pillars (red
arrows).
For example, the median
Sub-Saharan African
country performs better
than the median Central
and Southern Asian
country in Institutions,
Business sophistication
and Creative outputs.
Policy implications
o Innovation is a mindset – It requires the identification and
mobilization of multiple resources, and hence the engagement of a
multiplicity of stakeholders.
o Metrics are useful to ‘bring everyone on the same page’ and
provide a commonly accepted tool to minitor progress and identify
priorities.
o The core ingredient behind innovation (before investment,
research, and cooperation) is talent. Education is fundamental, as
well as openness and appetite for change.
o The GII aims at providing a set of feasible and ambitious objectives
to the global community, as well as a forum where policies and
strategies can be discussed, compared and coordinated.
Thank you for
your attention
www.globalinnovationindex
.org
Top 3 by region and income group
(GII rank)
Region/income group
1
2
3
Central & Southern Asia
India (66)
Kazakhstan (84)
Sri Lanka (98)
Sub-Saharan Africa
Mauritius (53)
South Africa (58)
Uganda (89)
Southeast Asia & Oceania
Hong Kong (China) (7)
Singapore (8)
New Zealand (17)
Latin America &
the Caribbean
Northern Africa &
Western Asia
Europe
Costa Rica (39)
Chile (46)
Barbados (47)
Israel (14)
Cyprus (27)
Switzerland (1)
Sweden (2)
United Arab
Emirates (38)
United Kingdom (3)
Northern America
Canada (11)
High income
United States of
America (5)
Switzerland (1)
Sweden (2)
United Kingdom (3)
Upper-middle income
Malaysia (32)
Latvia (33)
China (35)
Lower-middle income
Moldova, Rep. (45)
Armenia (59)
India (66)
Low income
Uganda (89)
Kenya (99)
Tajikistan (101)
Innovation Leaders
and Learners
Leaders are the top 25.
Learners are 18 countries
out-performing their
peers relative to GDP per
capita: Moldova, China,
India, Uganda, Armenia,
Viet Nam, Malaysia,
Jordan, Mongolia, Mali,
Kenya, Senegal, Hungary,
Georgia, Montenegro,
Costa Rica, Tajikistan, and
Latvia.
Key chart in
the Report, on
page 24
Some examples of fast movers
Small relative changes
among countries can have
significant impacts on
rankings.
Scores are often remarkably
close: for 51st to 75th
positions, a span of 2.7
points; for the 76th to 100th
positions, a span of 4.5
points.
Uganda and Costa Rica had
the most significant jumps,
bringing them, incidentally,
into the category of
innovation learners.
Country/Economy
GII 2012
rank
GII 2013 Jump
rank
Uganda
117
89
+28
Costa Rica
60
39
+21
Bolivia,
Plurinational St.
114
95
+19
Cambodia
129
110
+19
Mexico
79
63
+16
Uruguay
67
52
+15
Indonesia
100
85
+15
Ecuador
98
83
+15
Quality matters for
impact
Not all innovation inputs and
outputs are of equal quality,
and hence not all of them
have the same impact.
BRICs are the best
performers among middleincome countries on 3 key
indicators included this year
(top 3 universities, patent
family applications, and
publications citations).
The top 18 positions taken by
high-income economies.
GII Advisory Board in 2013
o Khalid S. AL-SULTAN, Rector, King Fahad
University for Petroleum and Minerals, Saudi
Arabia
o Daniele ARCHIBUGI, Research Director, Italian
National Research Council; and Professor,
University of London
o Robert D. ATKINSON, President, The
Information Technology and Innovation
Foundation (ITIF), USA
o Robert BELL, Program Director, National
Science Foundation (NSF), USA
o Irina BOKOVA, Director General, UNESCO
o Dongmin CHEN, Professor/Dean, School of
Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Peking
University, China
o Leonid GOKHBERG, First Vice-Rector, Higher
School of Economics, Russian Federation
o Rolf-Dieter HEUER, Director General, CERN
o Raghunath Anant MASHELKAR, Bhatnagar
Fellow, Council of Scientific and Industrial
Research; Chairperson, National Innovation
Foundation; President, Global Research
Alliance, India
o Diego MOLANO VEGA, Minister, Information
Technologies and Communications, Colombia
o Sibusiso SIBISI, President and CEO, Council for
Scientific and Industrial Research, South Africa
o Lynn ST. AMOUR, President and CEO, Internet
Society
o Rob STEELE, Secretary-General, International
Organization for Standardization (ISO)
o Hamadoun TOURÉ, Secretary-General,
International Telecommunication Union (ITU)
The Global Innovation Index 2013
Chapter 1 Discussion of results
• Annex 1 Conceptual framework
• Annex 2 Adjustments in 2013 and year-on-year comparability of results
• Annex 3 Joint Research Centre statistical audit
Seven analytical chapters - “The local dynamics of innovation”
Appendices
• Appendix I Country/economy profiles (142 economies)
• Appendix II Data tables (84 indicators)
• Appendix III Sources and definitions
• Appendix IV Technical notes
• Appendix V About the authors
Independent
statistical audit
Performed by the Joint
Research Centre of the
European Commission
The general conclusion is that
missing data are problematic,
particularly for the output subindex.
Inclusion for the first time of a
measure of distance to the
efficient frontier by Data
Envelopment Analysis (countryspecific weights for pillars
instead of common weights).
Published
rankings
Audit
No imputation of
missing data
Imputation of
missing data
Arithmetic averages Geometric averages
Fixed weights
Random weights
One calculation
4,000 Monte Carlo
simulations
One ranking for GII,
Input and Output
Sub-indices
90% confidence
intervals for each
ranking
Year-on-year comparability of results
(Annex 2)
Change in rankings due to data updates
o
o
o
2012 framework, 2012 and 2012 data compared
Missing data might affect the rankings, not just performance
The US and Singapore would have kept their 2012 rankings (10th and 3rd respectively) had
we kept the 2012 framework unchanged
Change in rankings due to adjustments to the GII framework
o
o
o
2013 data, 2012 and 2013 frameworks compared (20 indicators with adjustments)
The US gained 5 positions and Singapore lost 5 due to adjustments to the GII framework
Focus on indicators on quality (top 3 universities score, citations of publications, patent
family applications in at least three offices)
Inclusion of 3 countries, exclusion of 2 (indicator coverage criteria)
o
o
This effect, important last year, is monor this year
All countries ranked 48 onwards were affected by Barbados entering the rankings at
position 47