RECENT OECD WORK ON NATIONAL RESEARCH SYSTEMS

Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry

Daniel Kupka

Bruges, 25 September 2013 ENPI Regional Project: Preparing staff for EU-ENP related jobs

• OECD: Who we are• Setting the stage• Recent relevant OECD work

Outline

WHO WE ARE

The OECD…

• …is the global organisation that drives better policies for better lives

• …analyses, measures and compares experiences and policies to give advice that helps raise living standards globally

• …aims for a stronger, cleaner, fairer world throughefforts such as..

– Restoring confidence and financial stability– Tackling climate change– Fighting international tax evasion and corruption

Fast facts

• Established: 1961• Headquarters: Paris• OECD Centres: Berlin, Mexico City,

Tokyo, Washington• Members: 34• Secretary-General: Angel Gurría (Mexico)• Secretariat staff: 2 500• Annual budget: 347 € million (2012)

• Nearly 300 expert committees and working groups with participation of +100 countries

OECD’s global reach

Key Partners:

BrazilChinaIndiaIndonesia South Africa

34 member countries

New members: Chile Estonia Israel Slovenia

Ongoing membership talks with Russia

Public Affairs and Communications Directorate

SETTING THE STAGE

Public research funding

Knowledge transfer and the

commercialisation of public research

Government funds a large share of publicly performed R&D

Source: OECD Research and Development Database, 2011

(2010: 71% of HERD and 93% of GOVERD in the OECD )

Source: OECD Research and Development Database, 2013

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

% GOVERD financed by government % HERD financed by government

GOVERD

HERD

9

Institutional core funding

REI funding Project funding

Basic funding guaranteed mid- to long-term

Not dependent on applications

Various means of assigning budgets, including performance-based elements

Organised in programmes

Focus on exceptional research quality

System-level perspective (i.e. national science landscape)

Frequent reference to socio-demographic issues

Time-bound Application-based Competitively

organised Outcome-oriented

Research funding mechanisms

Government funded R&D in higher education by type of funding, 2008

Source: OECD Scoreboard, 2011.

Government funded R&D in the government sector by type of funding, 2008

Source: OECD Scoreboard, 2011.

A policy makers view on a public research funding system

Source: Steen, J. v. (2012), “Modes of Public Funding of Research and Development: Towards Internationally Comparable Indicators”, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, 2012/04, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k98ssns1gzs-en

Archetypes of innovation systems, 2010

AUS

AUT

BEL

CADCHL

CZE

DNK

EST

FIN

FRADEU

GRC

HUN

ISL

IRL

ISR

ITA

JPN

KOR

LUX

MEX

NLD

NZL

NOR

POL

PRT

SLK SVN

ESP

SWE

CHE

TUR GBR

USA

ARG

CHN

RUS

ZAF

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

% s

hare

of h

ighe

r edu

catio

n in

pub

licly

per

form

ed R

&D

(201

0)

% share of business in total R&D spending (2010)

Public research-centred

Firm-centredinnovation

system

University-centredpublic

research

Public lab-centredpublic

research

Source: OECD, Main Science and Technology Indicators (MSTI) Database, May 2012.

Switch in performers of R&D towards higher education sector

R&D performed in the government and higher education sectors as % GDP

150.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

Total OECD (2008)

Total OECD (1988)

HERD GOVERD

Public research funding

Knowledge transfer and the

commercialisation of public research

(Simplified) Knowledge transfer and commercialisation system

Public Research Results

IP ProtectionPatentsCopyrightsTrademarksTrade Secrets

BenefitsSocialEconomic Cultural

Invention Disclosure

No invention Disclosure

Evaluation of Invention

Market technology

Joint PublicationsMobility Contract researchFacility sharingConsultancyStart-ups by students and graduatesEtc.

Environmental factorse.g. Country's industry characteristics, companies absorptive capacities

Institutional characteristicse.g. University IP policies, Norms, research quality, university culture

Organizational resourcese.g. technology transfer expertise, relationships with companies

Researcher incentives/ characteristicse.g. motivation to disclose/share research results and data

Local and national S&T policies

A policy makers view on the commercialisation of public research

Legislative and

administrative reforms

Incentives for

collaboration

Supporting the emergence of

entrepreneurial ideas

Capacities to link with the external environment

through bridging and intermediary organisations

TTO

RECENT RELEVANT OECD WORK

Public research funding

Knowledge transfer and the commercialisatio

n of public research

Other relevant

OECD work

• Scope:– Research Excellence Initiatives (REIs)– Review of 27 REIs from 18 countries

Promoting Research Excellence: New Approaches to Funding (2013, forthcoming)

Promoting Research Excellence: New Approaches to Funding

22

Institutional core funding

REI funding Project funding

Basic funding guaranteed mid- to long-term

Not dependent on applications

Various means of assigning budgets, including performance-based elements

Organised in programmes

Focus on exceptional research quality

System-level perspective (i.e. national science landscape)

Frequent reference to socio-demographic issues

Time-bound Application-based Competitively

organised Outcome-oriented

Research funding mechanisms

Country Name of REI Start dateMaximum

funding period for individual research unit

Australia  ARC Centres of Excellence 2003 7 years

Austria Competence Centres for Excellent Technologies 2008K1: 7 years

K2: 10 years

Denmark Investment Capital for University Research 2008 5 years

Estonia Development of Centres of Excellence in Research 2001 7 years

Finland Centres of Excellence (2008-13) 1995 6 years

Netherlands Bonus Incentive Scheme 1998No maximum set (will change in future)

New Zealand New Zealand Centres of Research Excellence 2002 6 years

Norway

Norwegian Centres of Excellence 2002 10 years

Centres for Research-based Innovation 2007 8 years

Centres for environment-friendly energy research 2009 8 years

Poland Leading National Scientific Centres 2012 5 years

Portugal Multi-Year Funding Programme 1996 5 years

Russian Federation National Research University initiative 2008 10 years

Slovenia Centres of Excellence 2009 4 years

SwedenStrategic Research Areas 2010 5 yearsLinnaeus Grants 2006 10 yearsBerzelii Centres 2006 10 years

Overview of REIs in responding countries

• Scope:– Research Excellence Initiatives (REIs)– Review of 27 REIs from 18 countries

• Key findings:– Combine features of both institutional and project-based funding –

provide funding, but also prestige– Objective: competitiveness of research– Part of strategies to fund fewer institutions, selected on the basis of

excellent performance and future potential– Selection panels tend to be internationally staffed– Variation in focus: young researchers, infrastructure, attracting

international talent, cooperation with industry– Evaluation evidence remains weak – long-term effects remain

unverified and evaluation efforts have yet to focus on effects on research landscape as a whole

Promoting Research Excellence: New Approaches to Funding

• Scope:– Experts commissioned to investigate models, indicators and

impacts – Questionnaire survey completed by 13 countries

Performance-based funding for public research in tertiary education institutions (2010)

Performance-based funding for public research in tertiary education institutions

• Scope:– Experts commissioned to investigate models, indicators and impacts – Questionnaire survey completed by 13 countries

• Key findings:– Most schemes introduced since 2000– Main rationale: raise quality of research; but also others– Assessments commonly used for several rounds of annual funding– Open disclosure of processes and results in most countries– Similarities in indicators used: 3rd party income, publications, degree

completions; differences in combinations and weighting, reliance on quantitative indicators and peer review, and use of additional indicators

– Differences in budget impacts of schemes: while difficult to compare across countries, annual block funding affected ranges from 6% to 75%

– Differences in the involvement of HEIs in designing schemes– Few formal evaluations of schemes – evidence suggests positive effects on

research outputs and research management– Negative and unintended consequences also highlighted: e.g. narrowing of

research focus on publications targeted at certain journals

Performance-based funding for public research in tertiary education institutions

• Scope: – 20 countries participated: country notes / questionnaires– 12 institutional case studies

Public research institutions: mapping sector trends (2011)

Institutes’ main challenges in next 5 years – survey of 449 PRIs

Challenge – rank 1 Challenge – rank 2 Challenge – rank 3

Austria Increase scientific impact

Organisational development

Recruitment and retention of highly qualified personnel

Italy Increase scientific impact

Increase contract research

Increase degree of internationalisation

Norway Recruitment and retention of highly qualified personnel

Increase degree of internationalisation

Increase scientific impact

Poland Increase contract research

Increase scientific impact

Increase degree of internationalisation

Slovenia Challenges included increasing degree of internationalisation, increasing scientific impact, increasing contract research and increasing industry impact

Source: OECD (2011) Public Research Institutions: Mapping Sector Trends

• Scope: – 20 countries participated: country notes / questionnaires– 12 institutional case studies

• Key findings:– Amid diversity, trend towards more competitive funding– Variety of pubic funding sources– A trend too far? Concerns around short-termism, convergence,

careers, infrastructures, etc. Korea and New Zealand have notably reinstated core funding on account of these concerns

– Funding instruments should balance short and long-term goals and consider division of funding between PRIs and other research providers

– PRIs’ organisational arrangements have undergone active change– Increase in the importance of international relationships– Challenges in recruitment, particularly foreign staff

Public research institutions: mapping sector trends

Higher Education and Research for Development (www.oecd.org/iherd)

• Scope:– To create a methodology for identifying typological similarities among public

research-funding apparatuses applicable to developing countries focusing on structure and function instead of output, impact and performance

– 13 OECD and developing (middle and low income) countries from all continents

• (tentative) Recommendations:– Explore the possibility of applying a funding mechanism through supporting

centres of excellence as an instrument for pooling resources at the national level

– Encourage national funding organisations to participate in transnational funding initiatives

– Recognise the importance of, and support, institutional autonomy for universities   

– Consider applying an appropriate mix of competitive and non-competitive funding instruments

Public research funding

Knowledge transfer and the commercialisatio

n of public research

Other relevant work

New strategies and policies for the transfer, exploitation and commercialisation of public research results

• Scope:– Mapping of recent institutional strategies and government

policies to enhance the transfer and commercialisation of public research results

– Benchmarking performance in OECD countries– 10 institutional case studies

Patents filed by universities, 2001-2005 and 2006-2010Patent applications under Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) per billion GDP (Constant 2005 USD (PPP))

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

0.900

2006-2010 2001-2005

University patenting has increased for the OECD area in 2001-05, but growth slowed

1. Patent applicant’s names are allocated to institutional sectors using a methodology developed by Eurostat and Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (KUL). Owing to the significant variation in names recorded in patent documents, applicants are misallocated to sectors, thereby introducing biases in the resulting indicator. Only economies having filed for at least 30 patents over the period 2001-2005 or 2006-2010 are included in the Figures.2. Data broken down by priority date and residence of the applicants, using fractional counts.3. Hospitals has been excluded.Source: OECD Patent Database, February 2013.

Average annual growth rates for OECD area (absolute numbers)2001-05: 11.8%2006-10: 1.3%

PRI patenting has increased between 2001-2005, but growth turned negative

0.000

0.050

0.100

0.150

0.200

0.250

2006-2010 2001-2005

Patents filed by public research institutes, 2001-2005 and 2006-2010Patent applications under Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) per billion GDP (Constant 2005 USD

(PPP))

1. Patent applicant’s names are allocated to institutional sectors using a methodology developed by Eurostat and Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (KUL). Owing to the significant variation in names recorded in patent documents, applicants are misallocated to sectors, thereby introducing biases in the resulting indicator. Only economies having filed for at least 30 patents over the period 2001-2005 or 2006-2010 are included in the Figures.2. Data broken down by priority date and residence of the applicants, using fractional counts.3. Hospitals has been excluded.Source: OECD Patent Database, February 2013.

Average annual growth rates for OECD area (absolute numbers)2001-05: 5.3%2006-10: -1.5%

Licensing income, 2004-2011As a percentage of research expenditures

In Europe, revenue from licensing is low compared to the US

Source: OECD based on data from Australia’s Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, 2011 and 2012; European Commission, 2012; US Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM), 2008-2012; Canadian AUTM, 2008-2012; HEFCE, 2009-2012

Spin-off creation is higher in Europe, but little evidence of growth and job effects

Creation of public research spin-offs, 2004-2011Per USD PPP 100m research expenditure

Source: OECD based on data from Australia’s Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, 2011 and 2012; European Commission, 2012; US Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM), 2008-2012; Canadian AUTM, 2008-2012; HEFCE, 2009-2012

Mobility of people important for knowledge diffusion and industry’s research productivity

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Researchers Non-researchers Total%

Source: OECD, Careers of Doctorate Holders Database. www.oecd.org/sti/cdh

Doctorate holders having changed jobs in the last 10 years, 2009 as %

Co-authored publications can indicate the degree to which business absorbs or integrates public sector knowledge

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10%

Industry-science co-publications, 2006-10% of industry-science co-publications in total research publication output

Source: Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University, using Web of Science (WoS) database.

New strategies and policies for the transfer, exploitation and commercialisation of public research results

• Scope:– Mapping of recent institutional strategies and government policies to enhance the transfer

and commercialisation of public research results– Benchmarking performance in OECD countries– 10 institutional case studies

• Key findings:– Data on academic patents, licenses and spin-offs show a general slowdown– Limited evidence and metrics: current ones just the tip of the iceberg; those available

most relevant ones?– Other channels important (consulting, contract research, student start-ups)– Need to ensure that national and institutional policies are consistent with the local

and global research environment – Policy goals will differ according to countries’ public research environments (e.g.

academic excellence (i.e. quality of research) and commercial success mutually reinforcing)

– Encourage institutional experimentation (assuming there is already a high degree of university autonomy), in particular in ways PROs organise their relationships with industry

– Those who generate ideas and inventions (i.e. from professors to students), have relevant incentives -> Clear assignments of government oversight of academic incentives

Public research funding

Knowledge transfer and the commercialisatio

n of public research

Other relevant work

• Examine whole innovation system and the role of public policy

• Public research system dealt with prominently, but is just one element

• Issues of public research governance (funding, evaluation, research performer autonomy) are covered

• 14 reviews completed since 2006, another 6 ongoing / pipelined

• Regional reviews: Southeast Asia, Latin America Innovation Initiative , under discussion: MENA

OECD country reviews of innovation policy

OECD review of Innovation in Southeast Asia

• Part I: Regional Synthesis Economic Development and Performance Science and Technology Performance and Linkages Business Sector Innovation Innovation and the Role of Government

• Part II: Country profiles Cambodia Indonesia Malaysia Singapore Thailand Vietnam

• Annex: Economic Relations between China and SEA Countries: Science, Technology

and Innovation Issues: a Chinese Perspective

• There are unlikely to be ideal types / single best practices • Better marshal available evidence to support policy analysis

and design• Collect together existing OECD, World Bank and other

reputable materials on innovation policy, incl. reports and statistics

• Mobilise these materials in support of policy-making through their ordering, synthesis and linking => key source of value-added

• Expected users: policy makers and shapers (incl. OECD analysts) looking for facts, to explore issues, and to solve problems

• Public launch of a beta version of the IPP at the Global Forum on the Knowledge Economy in Istanbul (22 October 2013)

OECD-World Bank Innovation Policy Platform

Uses...Knowledge resources and collaboration opportunities

Accessible Repository of knowledge

Intelligent archive (memory of OECD & WB work)

Virtual platform for Community of PracticeResource for policy analysis and research

Learning space about policy tools and approaches

Access to tacit knowledge and case studies“How-to” of innovation policy

formulation and implementationSystematic decision frameworks

for policy

45

Resulting in improved responses to requests from Ministers, policy makers, and practitioners

• Types of content:– Existing OECD/World Bank qualitative reports– Existing OECD/World Bank quantitative data – IPP web pages for summaries and navigation (Q&A format)– New IPP ‘knowledge products’: policy briefs and case studies

• Organised by:– Country– Sectors and General Purpose Technologies, e.g.

Nanotechnology– Thematic modules

IPP content

Thematic modules of the IPP

Hot topics

Sectors

Ecosystem

Skills for innovation

Financing innovation

Intellectual property rights

Markets, competition and standards

Actors

Universities & Public Research Institutes

Innovation in firms

Innovative entrepreneurship

Public sector innovation

Basics

Innovation definitions & fundamentals

Public policy and governance

Measurement for policy

Linkages

Technology transfer and

commercialization

Innovation networks and

clusters

International linkages

• To be broadened with the support of countries– Use the structure of the IPP’s topic modules to

order country information– Include headline statistics– Utilise / link to country survey results, e.g. STI

Outlook survey– Case studies

• Existing case studies, e.g. in OECD reports• New case studies contributed by countries

– Links to other reputable sources of information, e.g. national, EC, etc.

– Role of countries in reviewing / adding to these pages?

Country pages

• Following functionalities:– Advanced search– Interactive statistical platform (IPP.Stat)– Interactive country maps– Interactive topic maps– Briefcase for saving and sharing search results

• A later generation platform could include other functionalities, such as apps that intelligently guide users through the IPP’s contents along problem-oriented paths

• The World Bank will lead in developing ‘community of practice’ features in early 2014

IPP functionalities

www.oecd.org/sti/innovation

Upcoming events and recent releases (sign up for newsletter):

www.oecd.org/sti/news.htm

Resources and links

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/ (Read online for free!)

OECD (2012), Transferable Skills Training for Researchers: Supporting Career Development and Research, OECD Publishing.doi: 10.1787/9789264179721-en

OECD (2012), OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2012, OECD Publishing.doi: 10.1787/sti_outlook-2012-en

OECD (2011), Public Research Institutions: Mapping Sector Trends, OECD Publishing.doi: 10.1787/9789264119505-en

OECD (2010), Performance-based Funding for Public Research in Tertiary Education Institutions: Workshop Proceedings, OECD Publishing.doi: 10.1787/9789264094611-en

Steen, J. v. (2012), “Modes of Public Funding of Research and Development: Towards Internationally Comparable Indicators”, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, 2012/04, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k98ssns1gzs-en

OECD Innovation Policy Platform (forthcoming), www.oecd.org/innovation/policyplatform.

OECD references

daniel.kupka@oecd.org

Thank you!