Atlantic Century II: Benchmarking EU & U.S. Innovation and Competitiveness

Transcription

1 July 19, 2011 Atlantic Century II: Benchmarking EU & Innovation and Competitiveness Rob Atkinson, President, ITIF

2 The Atlantic Century I The Study: compared innovation-based competiveness of 40 nations and regions. 16 indicators: including corp. R&D, government R&D, scientists and engineers, new firms, corp. tax, productivity growth and others.

3 This was the story: in rate of progress from 1999, the was behind Luxembourg Russia 8. Lithuania 9. Cyprus Czech Republic Malta United States

4 The Atlantic Century II The Study: compares innovation-based competiveness of 44 nations and regions. (Added,, Malaysia, Indonesia, South Africa and and subtracted Luxemburg and Malta) 16 indicators: including corporate and government R&D, scientists and engineers, new firms, corp. tax, productivity growth and others.

5 Overall Score: is 4 th (unchanged) Russian Malaysia Lithuania Cyprus South Africa Indonesia 5

6 Overall Change Score ( ): is 43rd Cyprus Lithuania Indonesia Russia Malaysia South Africa 6

7 Overall Change Score ( ): is 27th Indonesia Malaysia Cyprus South Africa Russia Lithuania 7

8 But Some States Lead the World Massachusetts California Connecticut New Jersey Washington Delaware Maryland Colorado New Hampshire 8

9 Education (college-aged pop. with tertiary degree) 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Russia Lithuania Cyprus Malaysia Indonesia 9

10 Education Change ( ) 180.0% 160.0% 140.0% 120.0% 100.0% 80.0% 60.0% 40.0% 20.0% 0.0% 10

11 Researchers, per 1,000 employed Russia Lithuania Cyprus South Africa Malaysia 11

12 Researchers Change ( ) 12-50% 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 300% 350% Malaysia Cyprus Lithuania Russia

13 Business R&D (% of GDP) 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% Malaysia South Africa Russia Lithuania Cyprus 13

14 Business R&D Change( ) 14-50% 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 300% Cyprus Malaysia Russia

15 Government R&D (% of GDP) 1.2% 1.0% 0.8% 0.6% 0.4% 0.2% 0.0% Russia Lithuania South Africa Malaysia Cyprus Indonesia 15

16 Government R&D Change( ) 16-40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Cyprus Lithuania Russia Indonesia

17 Venture Capital (% GDP) 0.30% 0.25% 0.20% 0.15% 0.10% 0.05% 0.00% Russian 17

18 Venture Capital Change ( ) 200% 150% 100% 50% 0% -50% -100% 18

19 New Firms (per 1,000 workers) Russia Malaysia Lithuania South Africa Indonesia 19

20 New Firms Change ( ) 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% -20% -40% -60% Lithuania Indonesia Malaysia South Africa Russian 20

21 Broadband (Quality and Subscription) Lithuania Cyprus Russia Malaysia South Africa Indonesia 21

22 Broadband Change ( ) % 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% Cyprus Lithuania Malaysia South Africa Indonesia

23 IT Investments (% of GDP) 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% Russia Indonesia 23

24 IT investments, Change ( ) 24-30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Indonesia Russia Malaysia

25 Effective Corporate Tax Rates 25 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Malaysia Russia South Africa Indonesia

26 Ease of Doing Business Lithuania Malayasia Cyprus South Africa Russian Indonesia 26

27 Ease of Doing Business Change ( ) Indonesia Lithuania Russian Malayasia Cyprus South Africa 27

28 Foreign Direct Investment (% of GDP) 20% 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% Cyprus Russian South Africa Lithuania Malayasia Indonesia 28

29 Foreign Direct Investment Change ( ) 500% 400% 300% 200% 100% 0% -100% South Africa Russian Cyprus Indonesia Lithuania Malayasia 29

30 Trade Balance (% of GDP) 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% -5% -10% -15% Malayasia Russian Indonesia South Africa Cyprus Lithuania 30

31 Trade Balance, Change ( ) 10% 5% 0% -5% -10% -15% -20% Lithuania Malayasia Russian South Africa Indonesia Cyprus 31

32 Productivity (GDP per Hour Worked) $60.00 $50.00 $40.00 $30.00 $20.00 $10.00 $- Lithuania Malaysia Russian South Africa Indonesia 32

33 Productivity, Change ( ) 33 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% 180% 200% Lithuania Russian Indonesia Malaysia South Africa

34 So What s America s Future?

35 Buffalo?

36 Or Boston?

37 So What s Europe s Future?

38 Rome?

39 Or Helsinki

40 Becoming Boston and Helsinki Means: 1) For Europe and America, establish a Trans-Atlantic Partnership to form a united front against innovation-based mercantilism in the rest of the world. 40

41 Becoming Boston and Helsinki Means: 1) For Europe and America, establish a Trans-Atlantic Partnership to form a united front against innovation-based mercantilism in the rest of the world. 2) For Europe, embrace the creative destruction of innovation. 41

42 Becoming Boston and Helsinki Means: 1) For Europe and America, establish a Trans-Atlantic Partnership to form a united front against innovation-based mercantilism in the rest of the world. 2) For Europe, embrace the creative destruction of innovation. 3) For America, wake up to the fact that we are no longer the leader and need an aggressive national innovation and competitiveness strategy. 42

43 Thank You Follow ITIF: Facebook: facebook.com/innovationpolicy Blog: Website: