Scientific and Innovative Potential at National and Regional Level in Romania
Corneliu Russu
Centre for Industry and Services’ Economy, Romanian Academy, 125 Calea Victoriei, Sector 1, 010071, Bucharest, Romania
e-mail: [email protected]
Abstract
The paper deals with the main aspects of the scientific research, technological development and innovation activities carried out in Romania at national, development regions and some counties level compared to the corresponding ones in some member countries of the European Union. The paper presents developments in 2007-2017 of R&D expenditures per inhabitant and as a share of GDP, the personnel from the respective activities and the results of carrying out these activities in terms of patent applications. The conclusion of the analysis is that the mentioned activities present numerous deficiencies, and the effort devoted to them varies widely between the development regions and the counties analyzed, also influencing in very different proportions their economic growth.
Keywords: scientific research; technological development; innovation; patent applications.
JEL Classification: O31; O32; O34.
Introduction
The results of the activities of scientific research, technological development and innovation give the measure of the scientific and innovative potential, respectively of the capacity of generation, assimilation and diffusion of the technological progress in all the activity sectors of the society, determining the pace of their development and modernization.
The increase of the competitiveness of the economy of a country is dependent, to a decisive extent, on the activities of research - development and innovation (R&DI). The increasing importance of this determining factor of the economic and social development of the countries and their component regions in the contemporary world is convincingly illustrated by the fact that a good part of the countries of the world, especially the developed ones, pay special attention to the intense stimulation of the respective activities, materialized in focusing their development strategy on such a coordinate.
The Financial Effort to Support R&D Activities at National and Regional Level
In contrast to the trends that are manifesting strongly on a global level, in Romania, the field of science and technology does not enjoy the necessary attention to make it capable of substantially increasing its contribution to the development and modernization of the economy and society. Illustrative in this regard are the R&D expenditures per capita and as a percentage of the GDP, which in Romania are the lowest in the European Union, as the following two figures show in comparison with some member countries of the European Union.
Fig. 1. R&D expenditure per inhabitant in some member countries of the European Union, 2007... 2017 (euro)
Source: EUROSTAT. Intramural R&D expenditure (GERD) by sector of performance and NUTS2 regions; Code [rd_e_gerdreg]
97.1
1273.7 297.9
46.9 30.9
598.1 46.3
632.2 313.1
747.1 617.5
1183 175.6
18.4
600.6
829.1 460.8
112.4
1270.8 313.8
77.2 28.2
491.6 68.6
657.1 331.6
855.9 672.3
1302.7 200.3
29
690.7
965.9 490.9
153.3
1504.3 283.6
171 39.4
671.9 113.6
810.4 364.5
1093.4 749.9
1109.5 308.4
60.4
900.4
1223 594.1
170.8
1615 302.2
137.8 48.1
590.8 127.3
857 392.7
1206.4 757.7
1121.7 324.5
54.7
1045.5
1286.9 624.2
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Hungary Sweden Spain Slovakia Romania United Kingdom Poland The Nederlands Italy Germany France Finland Czech Republic Bulgaria Belgium Austria EU28
2017 2015 2010 2007
Fig. 2. R&D expenditure as a percentage of GDP in some member countries of the European Union, 2007 … 2017 (%)
Source: EUROSTAT. Intramural R&D expenditure (GERD) by sector of performance and NUTS2 regions; Code [rd_e_gerdreg]
The difficult situation of the Romanian R&D domain is reflected both by the low level of the two indicators analyzed compared to the one achieved by the other countries taken in comparison, and by the fact that the share of the respective expenditures in the GDP remains approximately constant in the interval covered by the analysis, in the conditions in which in most other countries present in the table it has increased (mostly in Slovakia, Poland and Bulgaria); for the whole EU28, the growth in the analyzed period was about 17%.
The levels of the same two indicators presented for the development regions in Romania (EUROSTAT does not provide statistical data for the NUTS3 regions) clearly highlight the
0.96
3.26 1.24
0.45 0.51
1.61 0.56
1.67 1.13
2.46 2.02
3.34 1.3
0.43
1.85
2.42 1.77
1.14
3.17 1.36
0.61 0.46
1.65 0.72
1.7 1.22
2.73 2.18
3.71 1.34
0.57
2.06
2.73 1.92
1.35
3.23 1.22
1.16 0.49
1.65 1
1.98 1.34
2.93 2.27
2.87 1.93
0.95
2.43
3.05 2.03
1.33
3.37 1.21
0.89 0.5
1.65 1.03
1.98 1.37
3.07 2.21
2.73 1.79
0.74
2.66 3.05 2.07
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Hungary Sweden Spain Slovakia Romania United Kingdom Poland The Nederlands Italy Germany France Finland Czech Republic Bulgaria Belgium Austria EU28
2017 2015 2010 2007
significant gaps existing between the most developed and least developed regions, illustrated by the figures in the following two figures.
Fig. 3. R&D expenditure per inhabitant in the development regions of Romania, 2007… 2017 (euro) Source: EUROSTAT. Intramural R&D expenditure (GERD) by sectors of performance and NUTS2 regions Code [rd_e_gerdreg]
Fig. 4. R&D expenditure as a percentage of GDP in the development regions of Romania, 2007 … 2017 (%)
Source: EUROSTAT. Intramural R&D expenditure (GERD) by sectors of performance and NUTS2 regions Code [rd_e_gerdreg]
21.3
8.8 13.2 8.5 21
168.5
8.9 17.4
17.2 10.4 10.1 7.5 17.5
150.3
7.4 14.3
29.3 24.7 21.5
5.8
22.4
177.4
12.1
36.1
21.1 24
10.4 5.5
25
268.6
14.2
38.9
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
2007 2010 2015 2017
0.38
0.15
0.36
0.18
0.44
1.23
0.2 0.27
0.33
0.18
0.28
0.16
0.37
1.08
0.17 0.22
0.41
0.33
0.44
0.08
0.35
0.91
0.21
0.43
0.25 0.26
0.18
0.07
0.33
1.22
0.21
0.38
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
2007 2010 2015 2017
The hierarchy of the regions established according to the level of both indicators is the same, namely Bucharest-Ilfov, West, South Muntenia, Center, North-West, South-West Oltenia, North-East and South-East. The upper half of the hierarchy comprises three developed regions and the fourth - South Muntenia - which, with respect to R&D spending, has remarkable performances, due to the existence in the region of large companies with such activities and of university centers. In this field the special position of the Bucharest-Ilfov region must be noted, by the fact that the Capital presents levels of the two indicators much higher than all the other regions, in these conditions deforming much the country averages.
At the county level, the national statistics provide data on the total expenditures of the R&D activity in territorial profile and by categories of expenses, expressed in current prices. As the presentation of these data at the level of all the counties and of the Bucharest municipality would occupy an excessive space in the economy of this article, we limited the respective presentation to the first five most developed counties - in descending order Cluj, Timiș, Constanța, Brașov and Ilfov -, and to the last least developed - in ascending order Giurgiu, Vaslui, Botoșani, Teleorman, Suceava. The county hierarchy was made according to the level of the county GDP / inhabitant indicator registered in 2017, the last one presented by EUROSTAT.
In order to avoid distorting the real value of the respective expenditures by inflation, we will present the share of the expenditures realized by the selected counties in the total value of the R&D expenditures in the country, and the evolution of this weight during the analyzed period.
Table 1. Share of R&D expenditures in the counties selected in the total value per country of these expenditures, 2007 … 2017 (%)
Country / County Categories of
expenditures 2007 2010 2015 2017
Romania
Total 100 100 100 100
Current 100 100 100 100
Of capital 100 100 100 100
Cluj
Total 7,110 7,307 6,965 5,193
Current 6,376 7,579 5,575 5,003
Of capital 10,054 5,799 12,333 7,095 Timiș
Total 3,376 3,802 7,191 5,533
Current 3,056 4,136 6,587 5,435
Of capital 4,656 1,945 9,524 6,516
Cluj
Total 7,110 7,307 6,965 5,193
Current 6,376 7,579 5,575 5,003
Of capital 10,054 5,799 12,333 7,095 Constanța
Total 0.908 1,131 0,830 0,585
Current 0,911 1,044 0,929 0,588
Of capital 0,894 1,303 0,448 0,558
Brașov
Total 2,234 2,662 0,635 0,604
Current 2,239 2,132 0,752 0,615
Of capital 2,214 5,601 0,184 0,490
Ilfov
Total 13,263 18,617 18,365 33,628
Current 13,289 15,536 21,669 34,440
Of capital 13,160 35,722 5,599 25,511 Giurgiu
Total 0,010 - 0,110 0,002
Current 0,010 - 0.060 0,002
Of capital - - 0,320 -
Vaslui
Total 0,209 0,188 0,212 0,204
Current 0,256 0,221 0,266 0,217
Of capital 0,022 - - 0,071
Botoșani
Total 0,132 0,081 0,042 0,045
Current 0,153 0,096 0,049 0,048
Of capital 0,049 - 0,016 0,009
Table 1 (cont.) Teleorman
Total 0,031 0,023 0,009 0,001
Current 0,032 0,028 0,011 0,022
Of capital 0,029 - - -
Suceava
Total 0,652 0,549 1,714 0,198
Current 0,494 0,680 1,048 0,218
Of capital 1,286 0,637 4,288 -
Source: Own calculations based on data from NIS. Romanian Statistical Yearbook 2018, Bucharest, 2019, Table 13.41.
The indirect way of analyzing the evolution of the R&D expenses made in the selected counties, however, makes it possible to highlight some relevant aspects, some of which are difficult to explain:
o The R&D expenses made by the selected developed counties vary greatly from one county to another, but they are incomparable in level with those recorded by the less developed counties, the ratio between the extreme values in 2017 (Ilfov county / Teleorman county) being 23415: 1;
o Among the developed counties, three - Ilfov, Cluj and Timiș - have registered the highest weights in total, current and capital expenditures at national level, while Brașov and Constanța counties have surprisingly low weights in relation to diversity and remarkable performances of the economic activities carried out in their territories;
o Among the less developed counties, only Suceava recorded levels of the mentioned weight well above those of the other counties in this category; however, the performance of this county, which improved significantly in the period 2007-2015, suffered a very inexplicable decline in 2017, all the more surprising since the structure of its R&D expenditures indicates significant weights of capital expenditures. For the rest of the counties in this category, included in the table, in particular Teleorman and Giurgiu, the level of spending on R&D activities is so low that it raises the legitimate question about the usefulness of carrying out these expenses further, given the results of the research expressed in the number of patents and registration of designs applications which is extremely modest;
o The appreciable volume of R&D expenditures recorded by Ilfov county, much higher than that reported by the other developed counties included in the table, is explained by its position in the vicinity of the Capital, the connections with the research units from its territory being tight and taking place many relocations of the respective activities from the Capital to the county.
The Staff from the R&D Activities in the Selected Counties
The reduction of the scientific and innovation potential of the selected counties during the analyzed period is also caused by the steep decrease in some counties of the staff of R&D units, first of all the number of researchers, as the figures in the following table show.
Table 2. Number of employees from R&D activities in selected counties, 2007 … 2017
County Indicators 2007 2010 2015 2017 2017/2007
Cluj Employees, total 3008 3098 2866 2945 0,98
Out of which: Researchers 1968 2563 2062 2033 1,03
Timiș Employees, total 1007 2805 2748 2697 2,68
Out of which: Researchers 704 1820 1515 1478 2,10
Constanța Employees, total 620 663 1060 1251 2,02
Out of which: Researchers 402 504 815 1006 2,50
Brașov Employees, total 1378 1799 1400 1462 1,06
Out of which: Researchers 1231 1694 816 853 0,69
Table 2 (cont.)
Ilfov Employees, total 2760 2379 3997 5238 1,90
Out of which: Researchers 1770 1585 2510 2883 1,63
Giurgiu Employees, total 7 - 25 1 0,14
Out of which: Researchers - - 14 1 -
Vaslui Employees, total 88 68 114 124 1,41
Out of which: Researchers 59 42 45 42 0,71
Botoșani Employees, total 71 40 5 4 0,06
Out of which: Researchers 46 37 5 4 0,09
Teleorman Employees, total 23 20 27 11 0,48
Out of which: Researchers 9 6 11 5 0,56
Suceava Employees, total 512 433 540 595 1,16
Out of which: Researchers 368 363 345 366 0,99 Source: NIS. Romanian Statistical Yearbook 2018, Bucharest, 2019, Table 13.40.
The figures in this last table analyzed in correlation with the corresponding ones from the previous table lead to a first conclusion: the evolution of the staff and the number of researchers does not always follow that of the volume of expenses incurred with the R&D activities; for example, in Constanta county the personnel from these activities and the number of researchers increased continuously during the analyzed period, while the volume of expenses fluctuated and marked, in the last year of the period, a significant decrease of its weight in the total volume of expenses at the level national.
In all the developed counties shown in the table, the level of the two indicators presented has increased in various proportions, with the exception of Brașov county in the number of researchers. Regarding the increase of the ratio between the number of researchers and the total number of employees, only the counties of Cluj and Constanța have had positive evolutions (in the sense of increasing the number of researchers in the total number of employees from R&D activities), in the other three counties developed increasing the share of auxiliary staff, evolution obviously inappropriate.
In the category of less developed counties, the staff from the R&D activities is incomparably lower compared to the one from the counties of the first category, in accordance with the low volume of specific expenses and with quasi-general decreasing trends (except for Vaslui and Suceava counties in the number of employees).
An unexplained situation presents the Giurgiu County, the least developed by the level of GDP / inhabitant of 2017, in which the number of employees in R&D activities and researchers fluctuated within confusing limits, from zero in 2010 to 25, respectively 14 in 2015, so that in 2017 it will be reduced to 1, respectively 1; such a fluctuation cannot be considered as reflecting a real and sustainable scientific and innovative potential existing locally.
The increase in the number of employees and researchers in the developed counties, with the exceptions mentioned, is welcoming, proving that they have the resources to increase their scientific and innovation potential indispensable to substantially improve their competitiveness and, thereby, their development.
Outcomes of R&D and Innovation Activities at National and County Level
The differences of R&DI potential existing between the two categories of counties, already shown by the level of the specific indicators of the "inputs" in the respective activities (expenses, personnel), are convincingly synthesized by the situation of the "outputs", therefore the results of the respective activities expressed, among others, by the number of patent and designs applications, as well as the number of patents granted. The figures in the following
figures are edifying as to the level of the first indicator, both on a national scale, in comparison with member countries selected for our research, as well as in the counties in the two categories that we also selected for analysis.
Fig. 5. Number of patent applications addressed to the European Patent Office at the level of some member countries, 2007 … 2012 (number/1 million inhabitants)
Source: EUROSTAT. Patent applications to the EPO by priority year by NUTS2 regions. Code [pat_ep_rtot]
19.035
310.216 30.942
7.175 1.541
91.674 5.299
203.733 84
295.739 135.791
241.118 18.393
1.608
147.951
207.973
19.386
298.358 32.37
8.626 1.694
84.691 9.477
183.39 75.657
284.938 130.75
258.798 18.313
2.287
139.041
210.745
17.089
247.442 27.357
5.34 3.002
66.886 11.222
158.046 60.207
226.074 107.174
246.342 17.466
4.172
115.271
190.874
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Hungary Sweden Spain Slovakia Romania United Kingdom Poland The Netherlands Italy Germany France Finland Czech Republic Bulgaria Belgium Austria
2012 2010 2007
Fig. 6. The number of patent applications addressed to the European Patent Office in the selected counties in Romania, 2007 ... 2012 (number/1 million inhabitants)
Source: EUROSTAT. Patent applications to the EPO by priority year by NUTS3 regions, international patent classification (IPC) sections and classes. Code [pat_ep_ripc]
The comparisons at the international level in Figure 5 show: the large differences between the performances of the Nordic western member countries (Belgium, Finland, Sweden) and the southern ones (Italy, Spain), proportional, broadly, with their level of economic development;
the very large differences between Western and Central and Eastern European member countries; the decrease during the analyzed period of the performances of most of the member countries included in the table, including the most developed ones, except Bulgaria, Finland, Poland and Romania, so of three former communist countries which had very low starting levels in 2007; the surprisingly low performance of the UK compared to Germany and France, however, the island country being recognized for its appreciable creative potential; in the hierarchy established according to the level of this indicator Romania occupies the last place between the countries shown in the table, the direct and natural consequence of the existence of the numerous deficiencies mentioned above and highlighted by the low level of the analyzed indicators.
At the level of the counties of Romania present in Figure 6, the figures highlight the large differences between the performances of the developed counties and those of the less developed counties, in the latter case the data being for some of them incomplete. Most counties where one can follow the evolution along the whole analyzed period have increased the number of patent applications submitted to the EPO compared to the number of inhabitants in the county, which is a positive reality that denotes a growing awareness of the urgent need to develop the activities of R&D and improve their performance at an accelerated pace. The only county that registered the decrease of the indicator level was Timiș, the one with the number of patent applications in 2012 after that of Ilfov county, the evolution of this level during the period 2007-2012 presenting fluctuations of great amplitude difficult to explain.
0.707 0.979
7.403 0.649
0.706 0.446 0.221
2.925 0.691
0.737
2.282
1.578 0.609
0.634
6.246 2.875
5.832 4.325
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Suceava Teleorman Botoșani
Vaslui Giurgiu Ilfov Brașov Constanța Timiș Cluj
2012 2010 2007
Although EUROSTAT data refers to a relatively short period and long ago, these clearly outline the profoundly deficient situation of the national R&D and innovation system in Romania and the performances on this level of the selected counties, the developments produced after 2012 giving no arguments in support of the idea that the state could have improved. The official Romanian statistics present until 2017 data on the number of patent applications filed by the Romanian applicants at the State Office for Inventions and Trademarks, which show divergent tendencies manifested by the two categories of counties established according to their level of development (see the following figure) ).
Fig. 7. Number of patent applications filed by Romanian applicants, in territorial profile, 2007 ... 2017 Source: NIS. Romanian Statistical Yearbook 2018, Bucharest, 2019, Table 13.49
During the analyzed period, the developed counties present in the figure registered increases in the number of patent applications (with the exception of Constanța county), although the number remains at a modest level, while the less developed counties recorded all decreases.
Among the latter, Suceava county has a special situation, determined by the number registered during the analyzed period compared to the other counties selected from the same category, which represents the natural consequence of the better situation that it presented regarding the previously analyzed indicators (expenditure on R&D activities, number of employees in these activities and researchers).
Conclusions
Taking into account the analyzes carried out on the state of this determining factor of the counties development, it can be concluded that there are great differences at national and local level, reflected convincingly by the available European and domestic statistics. Contrary to the trends that are most pronounced in most European Union member countries, especially those in Central and Eastern Europe, the predominantly negative developments in Romania prove the reduced capacity of the R&D and innovation system to naturally contribute to the national and local economic and social development.
The sometimes considerable decrease in the level of the analyzed indicators is finally reflected in the reduced creative potential of the country and of the counties (expressed in the number of patent applications addressed to EPO), which is very far from that of the western member
54 4
7 9 5
12 21 20
45 40
142 2
16 4 1
78 36
22
79 86
15 2
4 4 2
86 14
16
43
73
29 3
6 2 1
89 38
8
52 62
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Suceava Teleorman Botoșani
Vaslui Giurgiu Ilfov Brașov Constanța Timiș Cluj
2017 2015 2010 2007
countries and significantly lower than that of the former communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe.
The insufficiently rapid progress and the existence of numerous setbacks regarding this factor, which is added to the account of others factors (foreign direct investments, education) greatly slow down the growth of the country and the counties and thus extend the period of full convergence with corresponding entities holding leading positions in the European Union.
References
1. ***, 2004. A Study on the Factors of Regional Competitiveness. A draft final for the European Commission – Directorate General Regional Policy, Cambridge Econometrics/ECORYS NEI/University of Cambridge.
2. Academia Română, 2002. Dezvoltarea regională și integrarea europeană (Simion, E., Iancu, A.(coord.)), Grupul de reflecție Evaluarea stării economiei naționale, ESEN – 2. Integrarea României în Uniunea Europeană, Institutul Național de Cercetări Economice, Centrul de Informare și Documentare Economică.
3. Asheim, B., Boschma, R. and Cooke, Ph., 2011. Constructing regional advantage: Platform policies based on related variety and differentiated knowledge base, Regional Studies 45(7), 2011, pp. 893–
904.
4. Asheim, B. and Gertler, M., 2005. The Geography of Innovation: Regional Innovation Systems, in:
The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. J. Fagerberg, D.C. Mowery, R. Nelson (eds.), Oxford University Press, Oxford.
5. Asheim, B.T. and Isaksen, A., 2002. Regional Innovative Systems: The Integration of Local
”Sticky” and Global ”Ubiquitous” Knowledge, Journal of Technology Transfer, 27, 2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 77-86.
6. Benedek, J., 2015. Spatial Differentiation and Core-Periphery Structures in Romania, Eastern Journal of European Studies, Vol. 6, Issue 1, June, pp. 49-61.
7. Benedek, J. and Veress, N. C., 2013. Economic Disparities and Changes in the Convergence of the Romanian NUTS2 and NUTS3 Regions, Romanian Review of Regional Studies, Vol. IX, Number 1, pp. 85-90.
8. European Commission, 2019. 2019 Innovation Scoreboard: The innovation performance of the EU and its regions is increasing, Brussels, 17 June.
9. European Union – FEDR, Romanian Government, Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration, 2013. Instrumente structurale 2007-2013. Strategia națională de dezvoltare regională 2014-2020, 2013, Bucharest.
10. Goschin, Z., 2014. R&D as an engine of regional economic growth in Romania, Romanian Journal of Regional Science, vol. 8, no.1, 2014, pp. 24-37
11. Goschin, Z., Sandu, S. and Goschin, G.G., 2015. How soon could Romania close the R&D gaps against EU-28?, Procedia Economics and Finance, 22, 2015, pp. 160-167
12. Isaksen, A., 2001. Globalisation: A Challenge for Local Industrial Policy. Building Regional Innovation Systems: Is Endogenous Industrial Development Possible in the Global Economy?, Canadian Journal of Regional Science/Revue canadienne des sciences régionales, XXIV:1 (Spring/Printemps 2001), pp. 101-120.
13. Lof, R., 2016. Why the EU regional policy has been inefficient in Romania. A regional comparative study of the counties of Cluj, Iasi and Dolj for the budgetary period 2007-2013, MA Thesis in European Studies, Graduate School for Humanities, Universiteit van Amsterdam, June.
14. OECD. Innovation driven-growth in regions: The role of smart specialisation, 2013 http://www.oecd.org/sti/inno/smartspecialisation.htm.
15. OECD, 2001. Regions in the Learning Economy, Paris.
16. OECD, 2011. Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2011: Highlights, Paris.
17. Sandu, S., 2014. Market of R&D Results in Romania, Procedia Economics and Finance, Volume 8, 2014, pp. 649 – 657.
18. Zaman, Gh., Georgescu, G. (coord.), Goschin, Z., Antonescu, D. and Popa, F., 2015. Dezvoltarea economică endogenă la nivel regional. Cazul României, Expert Publishing House, Bucharest.
