science and technology indicators for the nordic countries 2000 pdf

Because the need for strong defence is likely to entil spending substantial resources on R&D for defence purposes, lage Gifferences may indicate that resources speat on R&D include spend

Science and Technology Indicators for the Nordic countries 2000

A collection of articles

TIấY-REX-BMSO

Science and Technology Indicators for the Nordic countries 2000

Accollection of articles

TemaNord 2001:539

Science and Technology Indicators for the Nordic countri

Printed on paper approved by the Nordic Environmental Labeling

‘This publication may be purchased from any ofthe agents listed on the lat pag

2000

[Nordic Council of Ministers Nordie Council

Phone (+45) 3396 0200 Phone (+45) 3396 0400

Homepage: www.norden.org

[Nordic research policy co-operation

is aimed at promoting Nordic co-operation in basic and applied research and researcher

‘education by means of grant schemes, research programmes and Nordic institutions Nordic co-

‘operation also provides a relevant opportunity for preparing bases for decision and analysis of join problems of a research policy nature It isa way of strengthening the presence ofthe Nordic countries in intemational research collaborations

‘The Nordie Council of Ministers

‘was established in 1971 It submits proposals on cooperation between the governments of the five Nordic counties to the Nordie Counel, implements the Council's recommendations and reports oa results, while directing the work carried out inthe targeted areas The Prime

Ministers of the five Nordic countries assure overall responsibilty forthe cooperation

‘measures, which are co-ordinated by the ministers for cooperation and the Nordic Cooperation committee The composition ofthe Council of Ministers varies, depending on the nature ofthe issue tobe treated

‘The Nordic Council

was formed in 1952 to promote cooperation between the parliaments and governments of Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Sweden Finland joined in 1955 At the sessions beld by the

‘Council, representatives from the Faroe islinds and Greenland form part of the Danish

<elegation, while Aland is represented on the Finnish delegation The Council consists of $7 lected members - all of whom are members of parliament The Nordic Council takes

initiatives, acts in a consultative capacity and monitors cooperation measures The Council

‘operates visits institutions: the Plenary Assembly, the Presidium and standing commitees,

FOREWORD

‘This report contains a set of anicles which shed light on vasious topics relative to science and technalogy indicators for the Nordic counties, The articles focus on tends in resources for research and experimental development in the 1990s and on mobility of personel, innovation, interationat publishing and public understanding and media coverage of science It draws on several statistical atabases and indicators from the Nordic countries and from the Organisation for Economic Co-

‘operation and Development (OECD) and the Eurepean Union lis the third issue ina series of Nordic reports on science and technology indicators published by Nordic Ministerial Fund/Nordic Industrial Fund

‘The report was prepared by an editorial committee: Erik V Edvardsen atthe Research Council of Norway, Thorvaldur Finabjomsson at the Icelandic Research Counci, Kirsten Wille Maus at the [Norwegian Insitute for Studies in Research and Higher Education, Valdemar Senth at the Danish Institue for Studies in Research, Anders Sundstrom at Statistics Sweden and Mikael Akerblom at Saigiee Finland Kaja Wendt at the Norwegian Institute for Studies in Research and Higher Education acted as the committe's secretary

INTRODUCTION

Background and structure of the report

For more than 30 years, tbe Nordic counties have collaborated on methodology for R&D statistics and the development of science and technology (SA) indicators In this field, tbe OECD Working any of National Experts on Science and Technology Indicators (NESTD has played a key role, and its ork on improving the methodology for collecting internationally comparable date for measuring the input, output, diffusion and impact of science and technology has resulted in a series of manuals INEST! co-operates with other OECD statistical Working parties and with the EU statistical office (Eurostat) end co-ordinates the development of acoberent set of SAT indicalors across various areas International and Nordic collaboration has resulted, in adeition to national and international statistical reports, in more than 20 Nordic reports and 20 newsletters on R&D statistics and S&T indicators over the three decades, of which only a few are in English

‘The aim of this report i to present analysis and quantitative overviews of science and technology issves in the Nordic countries The interationalisation of R&D has been a significant ead in the 1990s, a5 part of globalisation of the world's economies and economic integration in the EU

‘Technological development is also being rapidly interationalised as enterprises locate thei laboratories in different counties, co-operate on R&D projecs, form technological alliances and so

In 2000, the European Commission launched for the first time a project on benchmarking in the field

of research and technological development and demonctration projects (RTD) New indicators will be Geveloped as will « methodology foc benchmarking national research polices in relation to four key

‘hemes: human resources in RTD, ineluding the attractiveness of science and technology professions: public and private investment in RTD; scientific and technological productivity, and impact of RTD

‘9n economic competitiveness and employment

‘The chapters in this report address the frst three themes They are mainly designed to interest

‘organisations and individuals involved in formulating science and technology policy objectives and in

‘making decisions on th Funding and development of the science and innovation system This volume

is also intended for researchers, heads of research units or agencies, research organisations and otbers

‘concermed with the role and objectives of research ina world of accelerating change

‘The aticles address the following topies: trends in resources devoted to R&D (Chapter 1); analysis of| the business enterprise sector by industry group (Chapter 2), human resources in terms of doctoral degrees and doctoral students (Chapter 3}; mobility of university graduates in the labour force

‘Chapter 4); and panicipation and co-operation inthe EU Fourth Framework Programme (Chapler 5)

‘Chapters 6 and 7 focus on output measures for R&D and deal with innovation activities and scientific publishing in international jourmals, respectively Chapter § examines public understanding of science

‘A summary in a Scandinavian language is included atthe end of each chapter

A short summary

‘Overall, she articles give the impression that the Nordic countries have performed very well daring the 1990s, especially in comparison with the EU average Nordic R&D expenditures have risen faster than Gross domestic product (GDP), whereas the average REDIGDP ratio for EU counties has been declining The positive tend inthe Nordic countries is mainly due to rapid increases in expenditure on RAD by enterprises Nordic participation in EU Framework Programme projects tripled between the thủ and the founhh programmes, although the share of projects with Nordic participation has remained the same This may bave stimulated overall researeh efforts, Even if R&D expenditures as 8 share of GDP in the Nordic countries are above the EU average, the shares of companies reporting innovation are at around the EU average

Famed doctoral degrees almost doubled during the 1990s, owing to special investments in post-

‘graduate education Circulation of knowledge and mobility of highly qualified personnel are very important forthe proper functioning of the innovation system Between 13% and 20% of those with university edueation changed jobs between 1995 and 1996 (or 1994 and 1995), although most remained inthe stme broad sector of employment The impact of Nordic esearch measured by shares

of etations in scientific articles has risen Nordic citizens seem to have a rather high interest in science and a rather good knowledge of science, probably owing to postive media coverage of scientific matters

<ecreasing In Denmark, the R&D expenditure/GDP ratio ha increased steadily during the last yeas

‘Authors from Denmark and Sweden have bad the greatest impact in terms of shares of citations in awdclee Norway's R&D expenditure has grown much more slowly than that of all other Nordic Counties and its RAD spending as a percentage of GDP is sill below the EU and OECD averages Indeed, its R&D expenditure asa share of GDP was lower in 1997 than in 1993 Among the Nordic counties, numbers of earned doctoral degrees grew most slowly in Norway

Chapter 1 RESOURCES DEVOTED TO R&D IN THE 19908,

by Dirgtta Bergstrim Batkestatt Statistics Sweden

Introduction

Research and experimental development activities (R&D) are of vital importance (o 2 county's economic growth and its ability zo give its citizens a good standard of living and coafidence in the future R&D is also imponant for developing many other things that are the sign of a good society, Ezonomic theorists have held this to be the case at least since the early qwentith century Some

‘examples of early theoreticians inthis respect are J A Schumpeter (1942), W E Gustavsson (1962),

4 Schmookle (1966), R Solow (1966) and Z Griliches (1967) Their theories have been the source of much debate since the 1960s, At that dime, interest developed in measuring the resources devoted 10 R&D and comparing the resus for different counties To address the increased interes onthe part of| analysts, politicians and others and to develop comparable data for member countries, the (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) drew up satistical guideline

‘The first edition ofthe OECD's “Frascati Manual” was released in 1963,

‘The shift in the industrialised counties towards the so-called “new ecomomy" has greatly increase the demand for highly skied and competent personnel able to create new knowledge How well are the Nordic countries prepared to meet the demands ofthe new economy?

‘This chapter focuses on R&D resources in the Nordic countries in the period 1985-97 in tems of performance and finance as well as personnel and includes national estimates for 1999 where possible examines intramural expenditures on R&D in individual counties and inthe Nordic countries (NC)

as a group and compares Nordie figures to European Union (EU) and OECD averages, After presenting key figures ~ gross domestic product (GDP), population, labour force, share of R&D ~ it turas to a presentation of tends in total expenditure on RED per capita expenditre on R&D and civil

‘expenditure on R&D as 2 percentage of GDP Information on R&D performance in various sectors and pattems of finance is given foreach Nordie coustry A final section measures R&D personnel in terms of person-years A short conelusion follows."

1, This chaper generally gives monetary values in USD PPP (purchasing power pate), a hese ae

‘readily avalable and sutable for comparisons among countries Some dsadvanages of is uit are being discussed by expe, especially in terms of wheter or not ts feasible fo relue USD PPP 3 fined price level This shouldbe kept in and fr the te seis pesened in tables and figues dation, surveys leading to PPP measures are not performed every year PPP rmcasres for

°

Key Nordic figures,

‘Compared with most other industrialised economies, the Nordic countries ae relatively small Some

of their economies have suffered during the 1990s, sometimes with a decrease in GDP at the beginning of (he decade From the mid-1990s, the general economic situation of the Nordic counties has improved, especially in iceland

In 1997, the Nordic counties asa group represented some 1% ofthe foal European Union (EU) GDP and barely 2.5% of total OECD GDP In the same yea, the total population of the Nordic countries represented 63% of the total EU population and 22% of the total OECD population The Nordic

‘countries’ shave of the active labour force was about 7% of the EU total and 2.4% ofthe OECD total,

‘Table 11 shows the various Nordic countries’ shares ofeach of these key figures

“TabloLl Koy figures in he Nordic countries, 1997 Pereantage ota

1 Billone fUSDPPP, 2 amon

3 Meson

4 Bllone of uso PPP

5 Thosnands Surce: Caution rom Maln Sconce and Technology ndcators (MST), OECD, 1909:2

[Resources devoted to research and development (R&D)

‘While the Nordic countries are small, they allocate considerable resourees to RAD Along with many

‘other factors, the inputs so R&D have probably contributed to Sweden's and Finland’s success in telecommunications Biotechnology is another high-technology sector in which Sweden and Iceland have experienced success in recent years

During the period 1985.97, the Nordic countries accounted for around 2.5% of total OECD expenditure on R&D, Le approximately the same share as for GDP, total population and labour force

‘Compared to the EU, the Nordic countries have a higher share of expenditure on R&D than of GDP,

‘otal population and labour force

Imermediate years ze estimates calculated bythe OECD A thin problem i that public consumption should not reflect marke prices but costs Owing fo hese problems, nena curencies at 1990 rie levelare used in some tables and figures based on ine seis,

10

‘Table12 Expenglture on R&D inthe Nordle countries, 1985-09

2 Includes a Nore contre

‘Sours: Man Slenes and Technology Incator (MST), OECD, 18802

‘Total expenditure on RAD has increased in all the Nordic countries (Table 1.2) Sweden's share of toual Nordic expenditure on R&D has decreased and was lower in 1997 (48%) than in 1985 (54%) (Figure 1.1) Norway's share has also decreased slightly to 14% in 1997, below its share im GDP tual population and labour force (see Table 11) Finland, Deamark and Teeland have all increased their shares; Finland's has increased the most, fom 15% in 1985 020% in 1997, Estimates for 1999 show [RAD expenditure is still growing rapidly in Iceland and Finland, and budgetary figures for Denmark suggest that its R&D effort wil also increase For Norway, provisional figures for 1999 show very litle growth For Sweden, estimated figures fr 1999 are not avaiable

.S2uœs: Mai Sdeoee and Technolegylndestrs (MST) OEOD 18992

Expenditure on R&D as a percentage of GDP

R&D expenditure as a percentage of GDP is a common indicator and is wsed to compare resources devoted to RAD in different counties Figure 1.2 shows that, compared to the EU average, the Nowdic counties fare well in this respect Compared to the OECD average, the shares in the Nordic countries

‘were lower in the second half of the 1980s but higher in the 1990s There are different possible explanations for this First, Nordic GDP decreased in the early 1990s, so that even stable expenditure

"

‘on R&D would result in ap increase in share, Second, R&D statistics have improved and cover more and more ofthe total economy For example, in Sweden, coverage ofthe business enterprise sector has

‘widened from manufacturing and mining to include all sectors except financial firms In addition, unl

1993 Swedish R&D statistics did not include secal sciences andthe humanities in any sector.”

Figure 12 Expenditure on R&D as a share of GOP in OECD, EU and Nordic totals, 1985-97 Percentage

2 Figures on socialsciences and bumanities for the higher education sector ave figured in Nordic

publications of RAD statics fom 1981 onvards Ths extensions represen around 5% of Sweden's Teal RAD expeadiure inthe second hala he 1980s and around 20% fom 1993

2

{In all the Nordic countries but Norway R&D expenditure as share of GDP has increased (Figure 1.3) Finland and Iceland have seen a steady increase, while in Sweden the share declined inthe early 1990s bat strengthened in the later part of the decade Denmark has seen a minor increase since 1993 Estimates for 1999 show that in Denmark, Finland and Iceland, R&D expenditure as share of GDP

‘will increase further, while in Norway i¢ will decrease slightly For Sweden, no estimates for 1999 are available

‘When expenditure on R&D as a share of GDP is used in comparisons with other OECD counties,

‘Sweden is highly ranked year after year Table 3 shows that in 199] Sweden's share was 289%, putting it in second place after Japan From 1993, Sweden has been the county devoting most resourees to R&D as a share of GDP, followed by Japan In 1997, dhat share was 3.85% The United

‘States was in third place in 1991 and 1993 bat fell to fifth place in 1997, Finland climbed from seveoth place in 1991 to fourth plae in 1997, Denmark and Iceland also moved up in the rankings Norway {ell from eleventh place in 1991 to twelfth in 1997 Sweden, Finland and Denmark are among the ten highest ranked countries in 1997

Table 12 REDIGDP fr selected OECD countries, 1991 and 1997

B

around 139% a year between 1997 and 1999, in current prices, Denmark around 8% and Narway only around 4% a year

‘Table14 Growth expenditure on RAD in OECD, EU and Nordic countries, 1996-97

‘Sowos Main Saence and Techrcogy Instore (MST), OECD, 19982

‘A high growth rate does not however imply that R&D expenditure represents a large share of GDP, Iceland has experienced a high growth rate over the last owo decades, but the share of GDP devoted to RAD is sil below that high investment in R&D and ther share of R&D in GDP with figures for ocher countries in 1997 A of several other countries Figure 14 compares the Nordic countries’ relatively country situated to the ripht, like Sweden, invests a large share of GDP in R&D Only Sweden and Finland exceed both the OECD and the EU average; Denmark and Iceland exceed that ofthe EU bat

‘et the OECD Iceland and Finland show the highest growth in R&D as a share of GDP between 1981 and 1997, Over the last two decades, growth in R&D as a share of GDP exceeded bovh the EU and the

‘OECD average in all the Nordic countries Norway i the only country where the share is stl lss than the average for both the EU and the OECD

Figue4 RAD expends a percentage of GP in 1687 compare to growth over the prod TSBLS7 ndox 198

Per eapita expenditure on R&D

Per capita expenditure on R&D reinforces the preceding picture In 1997, the latest year for comparable overall figures, the United States took first place among OECD member cosniries and

‘Sweden came second, both with around USD 790 PPP; the other Nordic counies were among the ten highest ranking counties Figure 1S presents average per capita expenditure on R&D forthe OECD

EU and Nowdic counties since 1985 It shows that the Nordic countries have surpassed the EU average every year and thatthe OECD ares average exceeded that of the Nordic countries before 1993, However, there are large discrepancies among the Nordic countries in this respec

Figure 18 Per capita exponditue on R&D in OECD, EU and Nord counties, 1985.97 Uspere

‘Source: Main Science and TechodogyIndealzra (MST), OECD, 18882

‘During the last two decades, Sweden has taken first place among the Nordic countries in terms of per capita spending on R&D (Figure 16) All the Nordic countries have increased their expenditure on RAD, although Norway relatively less so Norway ranked second in spending oo R&D per capita in the early 1980s but sine 1997 is in last place Since the mid-1990s, all the Nordic counties spend

‘more per capita on R&D than the EU average Since the late 1990s, four of the Notdie countries also exceed the OECD average, with Norway the exception In 1997, Sweden exceeded Denmark with

‘more than 60%, Norway and Iceland with around 70% and Finland with around 40% Estimates for

1999 show that per capita expenditure on R&D will increase most in Finland and Iceland Denmask also shows a sold increase, while the provisional fgutes for Norway shows almost no increase

Is

Figure 1 Per capita expenditure on RAD in the Nord counties, 1965-09 USD PPP

2 Eximaieg

‘Source: ain Science and Technology lncators (MST), OECD, 19882

Figure 1.7 clearly shows that Sweden and Finland spend more oo R&D per capita than would be

‘expected on the bass of their GDP per capita They differ from the other countries included, which are

‘bunched together between the median and United State

Figure 17 GDP per capita compared to por capita RED expenditure in selected OECD counties, 1997

Ciil expenditure on R&D as a percentage of GDP

Civil gross domestic expenditure on R&D has increased more as a percentage of GDP in the Nonlic countries than the OECD and EU averages This probably reflects both the fact that Sweden contributes around 50% of total Nordic expenditure on R&D and the considerable overall increase in expenditure on R&D Sweden, Finland and Iceland show an upward trend in terms of evil expenditure

‘on RED asa share of GDP It is worth noting that there is a clear difference between tual expenditure

‘on RAD af a share of GDP and civil expenditure on R&D as a share of GDP Because the need for strong defence is likely to entil spending substantial resources on R&D for defence purposes, lage Gifferences may indicate that resources speat on R&D include spending to improve defence, Sweden, {or example, has experienced high R&D costs during the development of new military aircraft, Figure 1.8, which shows the difference between total and civil expenditure on RAD as a share of GDP, makes

it lear that the difference is greater for both the OECD abd the EU averages than s for the Nordic

‘Sour: Man Sclence and Technology indiestore (MST, OECD, 100032

RAD performing sectors

In the OECD's R&D statistics, resources are classified into four sectors of performance: business enterprise, higher education, government and private non-profit Comparisons between counties and developments in each sector are made onthe basis of eurent prices

Business enterprise sector

In most OECD countries the business enterprise sector (BES) isthe main performer of R&D Among, the Nordic countries, in 1997, Sweden's business enterprise sector performed nearly 75%, markedly above the OECD and EU average In the United States, leland and Korea, the business enterprise sector plays a comparable role, with just under 75% For the other Nordic countries, the business

‘enterprise sector has a lower share than the OECD average, bot is weigh is increasing

„

‘Trends in expenditure on R&D in the business enterprise sector have varied in the Nordic countries tt grew fastest in Iceland, with an annual increase of 12% between 1985 and 1987 and nearly 34% between 1995 and 1997 (Table 1.3) Finland followed, with an annual inrease of 9% between 1985 snd 1997 and nearly 18% between 1995 and 1997 National forecasts indicate that the growth rate for Iceland and Finland for the period 1997.99 will be quite high, averaging around 16% a year For Denmark as wel, the inerease should be high at around 12% per yea, For Norway, provisional figures shovrs an annus! increase of 3%

‘Table 1 Annual changes in expenditure on R&D Inthe business enterprise sector, 1885-87 and ‘996-87, Percentage

‘Source: Main Science and Technology icatore (MST), OCD, 19992

In all he Nordic countries, expenditure on R&D in the business enterprise sector has increased relative

to total expenditure on R&D (Table 1.6) In Iceland, the share grew the most, from 22% in 1991 to around 40% in 1997 In the other Nordic countries, the business enterprise sector's share rose from, around 58% in 1991 to around 63% in 1997 in Denrsark, from 57% to 66% in Finland and from 70% {0 75% in Sweden, while in Norway, the share remained essentially stable (around 55%) The increase

in Iceland is mainly due to two recently established biotechnology enterprises that perform R&D In terms of USD PPP per capit, Sweden's expenditure was around seven times Teeland’s at the

‘beginning of the period but dropped to only three times at the end ofthe period and around 1.5 or two times that ofthe other Nordic counties

‘Table 1.6 Share of total expenditure 1097, Percenage, on RAD performed by tho business enterprise sector, 1981 and

Figure 19, Expenciture on R&D in the business enterprise sector, 1991-99 USD PP pe capa

‘Source: Main 32eneo and TechedlogyIndeato (ST), OECD, 19982

Figure 1.9 shows pec capita expenditure on R&D in the business enterprise sector Sweden's per capita

‘expenditure is much greater than that of the other Nordic countries For 1999, estimates for Sweden are not available For Finland, estimates for 1999 show the strongest increase between 1997 and 1999

in the Nordic countries Finland has ranked second after Swedea since 1993, when Denmark Finland and Norvay all spent the sume amount per eapita, Since 1993, Denmark as been in third place among the Nordic countries, and its per capa expenditure is expected to increase in 1999 Norway's

‘expenditure rose less than that ofthe other Nerdie countries in 1997 and is expected to show n0 or 8

‘very small increase in 1999 While Ieland’s business enterprise sector spends less on R&D per capita than the ether Nordic counties, 1999 estimates show a clear increase, with leeland gaining on Norway

‘The ratio of expenditure on R&D in the business enterprise sector to domestic product of industry places Sweden in frst place among the OECD countries For Sweden, this indicator was nearly double that ofthe United States in 1997, and Finland also surpassed the United States sigh

In terms of the sectors which receive the greatest shares of RAD resources, much attention has recently focused on high-technology industries, such as aerospace and information technology

‘Among the Nordic countries, only Sweden and Norway report R&D activites inthe aerospace sector: Sweden takes tenth place among OECD countries Not surprisingly, Finland led the leciriea/electroncs industry in 1997, and Sweden took eighth place As the Nordic counties have a Jong tation of RAD in pharmaceuticals itis no surprise that Denmark and Sweden are among the five leading countries inthis area, In more general terms, Finland fas a very obvious emphasis co the lecicalclectronics industry and Iceland on no-manfaetuing industries, while R&D is more

‘evenly distributed in the other Nordic counties

19

Euramural expenditure

While firms spend on R&D performed in house (intramural expenditure, they also buy R&D from other R&D performing units, ce esearch insirues, university departmets, private enterprises and affiliates (extramural expenditure) OF special interest are extramural expenditures abroad Especially

in Norway, firms have increasingly tended to buy R&D abroad Norway's extramural expenditure abroad by tho business enterprise sector represented 9% of the sector's toal (intramural and extramural) expenditure on R&D in 1995 and 15% in 1997; its extramural expenditure especialy

‘concerns R&D for the production of new products and devices in the pharmaceutical industry

In Sweden, extramural expenditure on R&D abroad represented around 12% of toa! expenditure on RAD in both 1995 and 1997, In Denmark, the coresponding rate seems to be around 8% in 1997 Regarding the Swedish business enterprise sector, total extramural expenditure was around 14% of total R&D expenditure in 1995 and 15% in 1997 There are some uncerainies concerting whether o

‘ot extramural expenditure is directed to affiliated firms Figures for Finland and Iceland are not available

Higher education sector

In all of the Nordic counties, the higher education sector performs lest R&D than the business enterprise sector (Table 1.7), In Teeland, the share is somewhat larger than in the other Nordic counties at around 28% Norway's share is close to that of Iceland In Sweden, the share has

‘decreased from 27% to around 228,

‘Table 7 Shar of total expenditure on RAD performed by the higher education sector, 1901 and 1097 Percentage

“Source Nam Sense and Technology Wieaioe (METH, OECD, 19902

Figure 1.10 shows thatthe higher education sector in Sweden bas the highest expenditure on R&D per

‘capita among the Nordic counties Sweden exceeds Denmark with 66%, Finland with 50%, lecland with 30% and Norway with 40% National estimates for 1999 show a reduction from 1997 in expenditure on R&D in Iceland's higher education sector while estimated figures for Finland, Norway sand Denmark all increase

+

Figure 1.0 Expenditure on R&D in he higher edueation sector, 1991-00,

USD PPP por canta

Compared with other countries, a very small share of expenditure on R&D is performed by the

‘government sector in Sweden, declining from 4% in 1991 to 3.59% in 1997 (Table 1.8) The main role fof Sweden's government sector is financing of R&D However in 1997, the shares of all the ober

"Nordic countries are above 13%, while the OECD average is around 11% and that of the EU is 15%

‘Table1.8 Share of total expenditure Percentage on RED performed by the government sector, 1991 and 1957

‘Sourer: Wain Science and Teohndiogy Indicators (MST), OECD, 19002

Interms of USD PPP, Iceland's expenditure on RAD by the government sector is nearly five times the corresponding figures for Sweden Expenditure in Denmark, Finland and Norway is around the hal

‘hatin Teeland,

2L

Figure 1.11 Expenelture on ABD inthe government sector, 1801-89 USD PPP per capita

‘As Figtme 1.11 indicates,leeland's goverament setof e expected to spend even more on R&D per

‘capita in 1999 Estimates are not available for Sweden, while Denmark and Finland only estimate a

‘minor inrease for 1999 and no increase is expected in Norway,

lowe 1.12 ga pertrming sector inte Nori counies and OECD, EU and Nore tt 1997 ercentage

Donat Friandceard Newg Sweden NC OECD EU

‘Sunass Eneprce Sacre Hghet Education Sect WGBorrheniEeEo Prin Non Prot Suir

NC = Nori counties

‘Sout: Main Science and Technology ndeators (MST), O€CD, 19882,

Figure 1.13 shows the evolution of R&D for the different performing sectors in each of the Nordic

‘countries In al, the business enterprise sector his grown from 1981 to 1997, with the strongest

‘expansion in Iceland Over the period 1991-97, the share of Iceland’s business enterprise sector grew annually by 38% Over the same period, annual growth was 13% in Finland, 9% in Sweden, nearly 8%

in Denmazk and 54 in Norway

[Expansion of R&D expenditure in the higher education sector was much weaker in all the Nordic countries Again, Iceland had the strongest growth, with 12% a year over the period 1991.97 while in Finland, it expanded by nearly 7 in Denmark by nearly 3%, in Norway by 4% and in Sweden by only 2%

‘Growth was slowest in the government sector in all the Nordic countries during the period 1981-97

‘Over the period 1991-97, R&D expenditure in Sweden's government sector grew faster than in its higher education sector but from a very low level, with an annual increase of 4%, In Denmark and Teeland, R&D in the government sector grew by 3% a yea, in Norway's by nearly 2% and in Teeland by065

For the period 1997-99, Figure 1.13 shows an estimated increase in R&D expenditure in the business

‘enterprise sector especially for Finland, and also for Denrmark and Iceland but no increase for Norway For the government sector, estimates for 1999 show some increase in R&D expenditure from 1997 for Finland and Denmark Estimates for Iceland suggest avery strong increase, while those for Norway Indicate no increase The higher education sector shows an estimated increase for Finland and Denmark and again no increase for Norway leland is expocted to show a decrease in the higher education sector

2

Figure 1.13 RAD by performance sector, 1981-80"

National Garency and 1980 prices

‘The pattern of finance

RAD activites are financed in different ways in different countries (Figure 1.14), In some, R&D activities are mainly financed by the business enterprise sector, while in others the government sector finances the major part The private non-profit sector (PNP) finances a small part in all Nocic

‘counties and in all other OECD-countrics as wel

In Sweden, the business enterprise sector traditionally finances a large share of R&D In 1997, it financed almost two-thirds of total expenditure oa R&D In Iceland, instead, R&D is traditionally financed by government, and in 1997, almost 50% of total R&eD was financed with public means Figure 1.14, Sectors financing RAD inthe Nordic countries and OECD, EU and Nore toals, 1987

‘Source: ain Science and Techoogy inceatore (MST), OECD, 19982

In the Nowdic countries, the share of tolal expenditure on R&D financed by the business enterprise

‘sector is increasing a the expense ofthe government sector Table 1.9 shows that inthe OECD area as 1a whole and in the Nordic countries, business enterprise finances a majoc and growing part of R&D; the share i lower in the EU, Amoag the Nord countries, the share of the business enterprise sector is highest in Sweden In 1997, Finland's share was higher than the OECD average while those of Denmark, Norway and eeland were lover

In Iceland, unlike other OECD countries, the government sector finances the major share of national R&D (Table 1.10) An agreement according to which government research institutes finance R&D in small and medium-sized enterprises patly explains the relatively low business financing However, financing by Iceland's business enterprise sector increased from nearly 25% in 1991 to nearly 425 in

1997

fable 1.9, Business enterpice sector of R&D, 1991 nd 1997

“Sex Nai §gence and acnngopy Tndestors (MST), OECO, 19802

“Table 140 - Share of tot! expenssture on RAD financed bythe government sector, 1091.97

<ecreasng in all the Nordic countries In 1997, only Norway and Iceland had higher rates than the

‘OECD and EU averages Between 1991 and 1997, Sweden saw a decrease from 34% to 25%, Norway {rom 50% to 43%, Finland from sround 40% to 30%, Iceland from 70% to 51%

‘The higher education sector and the private non-profit sector as sources of finance, account for only small shares of total expenditure on R&D in the Nordic countries At 5%, Denmark seems o have the highest share, but the share is decreasing, In all the Nordic countries, che shares are lower than the OECD and BU averages

Funds from abroad are increasing in Denmark, Norway and Iceland, which have the highest shares smmong the Nordic countries The funds come fora the EU framework programmes, Nordic funds and private foundations and private enterprises In Sweden, this source of finance has increased from 1.5%

Ân 1991 to around 3% in 1997, bu it sil has the lowest shares ofall the Nordic countries

R&D personnel

[R&D personnel constitute one of the most important resources for R&D activities The measure usualy used in the OECD's R&D statistics is fulltime equivalence (FTE), which can be thought of as

6

a person-year devoted to R&D Thus if a person has full-time employment but only devotes part of hisher time to RAD activities, only that part should be reported

During the period 1985-97, the Nordic countries represented between 8.54 and 10.5% of the EU's total person-years devoted to R&D (Table 1.11) Thee share increased over the period, despite a drop

in 1991, The Nordic countries” share inthe number of BU person-years devoted to R&D is higher than their share in GDP (nearly 7%), total population (just above 6%) and labour free (7%),

Table 1.11 Personyears ‘Thousand devoted to RED, 1985-07

‘Sours: Wain Sac and Tectnsogy alors (STI), OBCD, 999

Table 1.11 shows that Ieland had the highest growth rate for person-years devoted to R&D in the period 1991-97, followed by Finland and Denmark ‘The growth rae is higher forall the Nordic Counties than for tie EU as & whole Iceland shows a slow growth rate inthe beginning ofthe period 1990-97, reaches a high poiat in 1994-95 and has the highest growth rate from 1996-97 The growih

‘ae was considerably slower in Sweden and Norway than inthe other three Nordic countries Sweden and Norway thea, have lost in relative size, while Iceland, Denmark and Finland have gained (Table 1.12)

‘Teble1.12 Persomyere devoted to RAD In the Nordic countries, 198597

‘may be expected thatthe R&D activities are performed on a higher and more creative level th higher the ratio of person-years devoted to R&D performed by researchers, scientists and engineers to those

a

performed by technicians and supporting personnel is Table 1.13 shows that the share of total person yetrs devoted to R&D performed by researchers, sciemists and engineers in the Nordic countries is increasing relative o the EU average

‘Table 1.13 Person-years devoted to RAD by researcher, sclentiss and engineers (or university

‘graduetos)n tbe Nord counties and OECD, EU and Nora totals, 1985-97

1 "Caled forthe as ex years

2 Galoates for he fet elaven yeas

‘Soure: Main Sconce and Technology lvscaors (MST), OECD, 19602

‘Among the Nordie countries, the pater of researchers, scientists and engineers is very similar to that ofthe total numberof person-years devoted to R&D, with the exception of Norway where the share of person-years performed by researchers, scientists and engineers is higher than that ofthe total amber

‘of person-years devoted to RAD (Table 1.14),

‘Table 1.14, Person-years devoted to R&D by researchers, sclomats and engineers (or univeraty

‘gradustes) and total person-years devoted to RAD, 1997 Porcontage

Parsons Tatar county pertormed by ASE porsonyaars

“Boures ain Saance and Techaogyindstor STH, OECD, TO,

In 1997, Sweden and Norway had a smaller share of Nordic person-years devoted to R&D than in

1987, both for total person-years and for thse of researchers, slentists and engineers

‘The ratio of person-years devoted to R&D performed by researchers, scientists and engineers to tal person-years devoted to R&D shows that in the Nordic countries, larger share of total person-years is performed by researchers, scientists and engineers than inthe BU as a whole (figure 1.18) fn 1997, the

28

Nordic countries exceed EU around thee percentage units The stare is increasing in both the EU and the Nordic counties

Figure 1.5, Persomyears devoted to RAD by researchers, scienets and engineers (or university gfduslee) sa share of foal m EU and inthe Nore courte, 1997

Source: Min Science and Technology incators (MST), OECD, 19982

Table 1.15 shows the ratio of researchers, scientists and engineers to total labour fore The share of the former is greater than the EU average, and fceland has the highest share among the Nordic countries

‘Tobie 1.18, Researchers, sclntsts and engineers (r university graduates) per thousand labour force,

‘Rota The EU Kgs ae 05 OECD otal

‘Souos: Main Seine and Technology Indeators (ASTI), OECD 19892

Conclusions

R&D js of vital importance to a country’s economic growth, The Nordic counties are among those with the highest R&D intensity as compared to their foal resources As a group they have a higher share than the EU and OECD averages of expenditure on R&D, of R&D personne! in general and of researchers, scientists and engineers than their total resources, as reflected in GDP, population and

”

labour foree would suggest It can be concluded that the Nordic counties take # leading place among

‘OECD countries in most comparisons concerning RAD resources

During the last to decades, most industrialised counties have increased the amount of resources devoted 19 R&D This is particularly evident in the Nordic countries and especially in eeland (where the amount has increased three-fld between 1981 and 1999) and Finland (more than two-fold

‘between 1981 and 1998), AI the Nordic counties but Norway have steadily increased R&D expenditure asa share of GDP Daring the world-wide recession in the middle of the two last decades, the share of GDP invested in R&D increased, except in Norway, where it has increased almost not at all since 1987 It should be noted, however, that such an increase may be due either to an increase in resources devoted to R&D or to a decrease in GDP, ot a combination of the two In Sweden and Finland, GDP dropped in the early 1990s None ofthe Nordic countries reduced their investments in R&D In iceland, where GDP has grown strongly spending on R&D as share of GDP has also seen strong growth over the last two decades

However, for Norway, as well as for Sweden to some extent, investment in R&D has not risen as

‘much as inthe other Nordic countries Total gross domestic expenditure on R&D hus increased in all the Nordic countries, bu the shares of Norway and Sweden are lower in 1997 than they wer in 1985 Estimates for 1999 forall the Nordic countries except Sweden show a funher increase in total R&D expenditure from 1997 The percentage increase is expected to be highest for Finland and Iceland, followed by Denmark, but there is almost po increase for Norway

“The business enterprise sector performs most of the R&D in mast OECD countries ln 1997, 75% of

‘Sweden's R&D was performed by this sector On average, the business enterprise sector finances just

‘over 505 of domestic expenditure on R&D in the EU In Sweden, the percentage exceeded 67% in

1997 and was nearly 634 in Finland; the share was lower inthe other Nordic countries

RAD personnel are of course a very important element in R&D activities Between 1987 and 1997,

‘Sweden and Norway have seen declines in ther relative importance inthe Nordic countries in terms of {otal person-years devoted to R&D both for total R&D person-years and for person-years performed bby researchers, sciemists and engineers

Highly skilled personnel are of vital importance toa country's R&D performance One aspect ofthe high ranking of the Nordic countries concerns the ratio of researchers, scientists and engineers t0 the total labour force, which are among the most highly ranked counties in this respect The ratio is increasing forall these counties and especially Iceland,

30

SAMMANFATTNING

Forskning och urveckling (Fol) ar av contrat betydelse fr et lands ekonomiska uiveckling och fr

<dessfrmiga att skapa goda forhillanden fr dess medborgare Teoretiker inom sammhallsekonomisks linen pipekade deta redan i orjan av fora sekle: I miten av 1960-alt pibosjades inom OECD, {genom samverkan a de olka medlemslindema, matningar av respektve lands resursnsatser pi PoU,

‘Det ansigs viktigt at kunna gora internationella jmftrelser OECD har for detta indamdl byget upp

<databaser, varav Min Science and Technology Indicators ar den databas som anvants fer denna artikel

‘monetira termer ar gjrts i kopkrafisparteter i USS (PPPS) aven om deva mat har

Ar 1997 satsade de nordiska lindera tillsammans 14,$ miljarder USD PPP pa Fol, Det motsvarar

‘got dver to procent av EU's toala FoU-satsning Man skall db komma ig att de nordiks linderea har betydlig Kigre andelar in si nr det giller sidana mitt som brutonationalproikt, population och arbetskraft

Under de senaste 20 fren har de fiesta OECD: lundema dkat sina FoU-insatser, wttyekta som FoU- utgifter i ferhdllande till brutonationalproduktea Av de nordiska landerna giller deta i synnerbet Island och Finland Norge diremot har inte haf samma okningstakt i deta hanseende

Sverige och Finland ar bland de OECD-lander som ar 1997 hade hogat andelar FoU-atgifter i {orillande tll ruttonationalprodukten Sveriges andel var detta dr 3,85 procent och Finlands 2,78 procent, Danmark mde upp til 1,89 procent, Island tll 1,84 och Norge il 1,68 procent

Bland OECD- Linder uppyisur de norsk landerna ocksh Noga relatonstal total utter for Fot! telatras til populaionen, Samtiganordiska Linder var ir 1997 bland de elva hogst placerade OECD- landerna i deta avseende Sverige lig pi andra plas med 787 USD PPP per person Finland hade 569 USD PPP, Danmark hade 483, Island 457 och Norge 449 USD PPP Sedan 1985 har samiiga now Linder kat deta relatonsal,Isiand har fyrdubblat deta matt sedan 1985

‘Ar 1985 var Sveriges andel av de nordiska lindemas totala utgifier for FoU ungefar $4 procent

‘Andelen har sedan dess gradvis minskat och uppgick tl 48 procent ar 1997

[Nationella prognoser for 1999 visa at FoU-ugifiersa berdknas Ska kraft jsyanerbet i Finland och [eland, men nigot ligra i Danmark, I Norge Rivintas endast en smare Okaing av Fol-lgiftera, Det

‘evligger inte ndgra prognoser over FoU-ugifema i Sverige for dr 1998

1 de festa OFCD-linderna ufors FoU-arbetet ill swiss delen inom foretagssektom Deta dr fll

‘ven for Sverige som tll 74 procent har sin FoU utford i foretagssektom Ovriga nordiska linder har ligre Koncentration pi fietagssektom an vad som giller for OECD-genomsnittet Andelen av FoU- resursema som foebrukas inom universtetssektom ligger i genomsnit for OECD pi ea 17 procent och

i genomsnit for EU pl cirka 20 procent amiga nordiska lander ligger Over dessa genomsait

a

‘Finland har en mycket utalad sutsning p& elektroindysrin med 43 procent av fortagssektomns FoU- utgifersatsade i denna bransch,

Finanieringen av FoU-verksamheten ar skifande foe OECD-lindera Sveriges Fotl-utiter de -madtlonelt finansirad av fetagsscito tl sor del Ar 1987 uppgick denna ande il 67 poceat Islnd Gr sin storia andel ay FoU-utgifera fnaasierad av den offeligasektor Dena a ine srt vanlg bland OECD andernaemedan deta gllerendast fr yterigare sex lind,

Ar 1985 genomfirdes i de nordiska lindema 112 677 Foll-drwverken, Ar 1997 hade dessa Ska ill 167 {862 FoU-arsverken, I faehllande till EU mocsvarade dessa 8,3 respektive 10,3 procent

Met bakgrund av de data som redovisas av OECD genom MSTI mise de nordiska landerna

‘lasificera bland de inder, som satsar mest ph FoU i feehillande til sing total resurser,

32

REFERENCES

Du Riet, A (1975), Indutiforskningens uiveckling och avkastning med en enalys av FoU-

investeringamas rantabilitt inom stil-kemi- och skogsindustriems, Industins

Utedningsinstiu, UL

Griliches, Z (1967), “Production Functions in Manufacturing: Some Preliminary Results in M Brown (ed,), The Ticory and Empirical Analysis of Production, National Bureau of Economie Research, New York and London

‘Gustafsson, W-E (1962), "Research and Development, New Products and Productivity Change”,

‘American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, Vol Ll, May

‘OECD (1963), Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys of Research and Development (‘Frascati

Manual"), OECD, Pars

‘OECD (1993), Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys of Research and Development, Development (CPrascati Manual”), Fifth edition, OECD, Paris

‘OECD (1999-2) (electronic version), Main Science and Technology Indicators (MSTI), OECD, Paris Schmookler, J (1966), Invention and Economic Growth, Harvard University Press, Cambridge,

“Massachusetts

Schumpeter, J.A (1942), Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Hasper & Row, New York

Solow, R, (1957), "Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function”, Review of Boonomics

‘and Stites, Vol XXXEX, August

3

Chapter 2

‘A COMPARISON OF BUSINESS ENTERPRISE R&D

by Valdemar Smith

‘The Danish Institut for Studies in Research and Research Poliey

and Department of Economics, The Aarhus School of Business

‘constant at 1.82% Thus, the Nordic business enterprise sector's R&D effort has increased boi in absolute terms and relative otha ofthe OECD area asa whole

Potential explanatory factors include overall business conditions and differences and changes in industry structure In addition, national polices forthe overall R&D environment are important Thus R&D tax treatment is another noteworthy factor in country differences in BERD In addition, direct,

‘government support to R&D seems to be a significant factor Finally, the simulation effect of the

‘whole innovation system varies from country to country This may result in heterogeneous spillover cffects, for example from R&D performed by the public sector for the business enterprise sector Which in the end can affect BERD both absolutely and relatively A umber of studies of OECD countries focus on these factors to explain th differences in BERD (Guellee and van Potel‹berzbe, 2000; Sendven and Stith, 1998; Capron and van Potelsbershe, 1997: OECD, 1997)

‘This chapter focuses on the inter-Nordic differences in BERD described in Chapter 1 Figure 2.1 ilusates the deviations in each country’s R&D intensity (BERD as a percentage of industry valve added) from the Nordic average in 1997! Average R&D intensity was 2.735 However, only one

1 Sweden has the largest weight in Nordic average fares, because it has the largest busines stor

“among the Nordic courses

35

‘country is above the average, namely Sweden, with an RAD imtensity of 4.35%, whereas Finland's R&D intensity approximately corresponds to the average

Norway and Iceland are 1.4 and 1.5 percentage points below the Nordic average, and lag far behind

‘Sweden, with R&D intensities of less than one-thied the Swedish level The R&D incensity of the Danish business enterprise sector was 1.90%, which corresponds to a negative deviation of (0.80 percentage point from the Nordic average Accordingly, there are significant differences in the business enterprise sector's RED effor in the Nordic countries This chapter tres to shed some light fon why these differences exist

“The following section describes in more detail trends and differences in BERD by comparing sectors inthe different countries Next, the differences in industrial structure are inwoduced more expliclly as fan importnt factor Thea, R&D intensities are broken down info siructura, intasectoral and specialisation components The following section concentrates on the influence of fim size; and finally, the concentration of BERD (total R&D by firm size) is analysed to give a full picture of the structure of BERD in each country brief conclusion follows

Figure 21 usiness entrprise expenditure on RAD (BERD), 1087 Percentage ofinustry valve aod, deviation from to Nore average

General trends in business enterprise expenditure on R&D

‘The differences in Nordic R&D intensities are not a recent phenomenon Figure 22 shows their

‘elative RAD intensities since 1989, ie foreach year each country's R&D intensity is divided by the [Nowdic average, which serves as numeraire (equal to 100 in each year) While the levels are more or Jess stationary, there has been some estch-up in Ieland and Finland In 1989, Iceland's relative R&D intensity was only 16% ofthe Nordic level but in 1997 it stood at 44% As a result, leland’s relative position has come close 10 Norway's, at 49%, which has fallen constantly since 1989 Denmark's relative postion is quite constant a close to 70%

‘Trends in relative R&D intensities would normally reflect overall business conditions Thus, high economic growth would normally induce a higher R&D effort, because an increase in markete Increases the returns to R&D investments Fuhermore, high growth normally means higher profits, 0 that own financing of risky R&D is more feasible This seems to be the case for Iceland, with

‘cumulative rel economic growth of 60% over the period 1990.97 in which the OECD average was

36

\s%, However, over thẻ sime pedod, the Swedish and Finnish economies grew only by 7% and 6%,

‘but the R&D effort maintained is relatively high position In Norway the economy grew by 31%, but the country’s relative R&D intensity decrirated

In terms of tax treatment and public funding of R&D investments, Denmark seems to have the most favourable policy and Norway'the leat favourable (Cvellee and van Pottelsberghe, 2000), However,

‘on the basis of government funding of private R&D investments (16% in 1996), Norway seems 0 give the most public funding for company-financed R&D, although itis mainly public support to private

‘non-profit institutions At 54 in 1996, Denmark has the lowest rate of public funding However, GGuellec and van Potesberghe demonstrate that during the 1990s thee has been novable convergence among the None countries with respect to pubic funding of private R&D investments

Figure 22 Relative RED intensities" by country, 1989-67 Nod averages 100 each yoar

—®—Denmark —&— Fnland —ả— koland Norway —¥— Sweden

Finally, Guetlee and van Potelsberphe show tha, inthe Nordic countries fiscal generosity towards R&D investments (R&D tax rules relative to the general tax treatment of firms) was greatest in

‘Sweden at the beginning of the 1980s On the same basis, in the mid-1990s, Denmark's tax treatment

‘of R&D investments was the most generous, which might explain the modest Danish catch-up inthe second half ofthe decade

Industry stricture is another explanatory factor Table 2.1 presents R&D expenditure in purchasing

‘power parities (PPPS) broken down by industry In 1997, the Swedish business sector had by far the largest share with 33% of tơal Nordic BERD, Finland was a distam second, with 19%, slightly ahead

The distribution by industyy shows considerable cross-country differences In Denmark, Pharmaceuticals is by far the most imporant single industry with respect to the RAD efor, performing 20% of total Danish BERD The next largest sector is Other machinery, with 14% ofthe

‘ational total, Finally Osher industries, mainly constuction and service industries, acount for nearly

„

36% of Danish BERD, or nearly tsce the Nordic average In Finland, Electronic equipment takes first place, with nearly 40% of total Finish BERD, while Other industries accounts for only 10%

Iceland's RAD structure is very different from that of other Nordic countries As expected, the most important single industry is Food, beverages and tobacco, which represents 17% of national BERD, In Addition, Other industries is important, ith a share of almost 456, Other industries also plays an {important role in Norway, with nearly 42% of Norwegian BERD Unlike the other counties, Norway does not have a dominant single sector, probably owing tothe influence of the oil and gas sector ox [Norway's overall industry structure Electronic equipment isthe largest single sector, but it accounts for only 12.8% of BERD

Jn Sweden, BERD is concentrated to a small numberof industries ts dominated by Ships, aerospace and other transport equipment, Electronic equipment and Pharmaceuticals In all these three industries represent over 3 billion PPPS, ot close to 60% of Swedish BERD In addition, Other machinery accounts for 9.3%

‘Tablo2.1 Business enterprise expenditure on RAD, by industry, 1097

25“ Fabborandpintooros, 188 «40508 | «108 a7

Jain PPPS = ORK 654 = FIM G08 = SRO = NORES = SERORD,

` Tna nemafen ndusa) standards are the UN stance SIC fay and the EU slandard NAGE Ra, † whichis more dot than 181 The two fst aig oft NACE and ISIC cod ates aro ental

Tenn not ncaded in the Nord oa bacnute of ak of daa ata euticenty detailed evel

‘Sew: OECD, ANBERD 2000; oun comuons

Figure 2:3 shows R&D expenditare in the four largest RAD sectors Electronic equipment is by far the

‘most important, with R&D expenditure of 2.1 billion PPPS Sweden and Finland clearly dominate here However, for Pharmaceuticals and Other machinery nec, Denmark is the second most important country after Sweden

Figure 23 Top four RAD manufacturing industries, by county, 1897

Ships Aerospace & Other Transport

Electro Equipment (Radio TV

‘communication)

MiIIPPPS sweden Finland Denmark Norway |

Source: Table 2.1

Ranking the figures in Table 2.1 according to their magnitude for each country, itis possible to compute bilateral rank correlation coefficients Of course, the statistics reflect industry structure, but they’stil give a ough picture of the similarities in the structure of BERD and a first indication of why

‘overall BERD differs across the Nordic countries

‘The comelation coefficients are shown in Table 22 Judging by these figures, Sweden's R&D strueture is closer to that of Finland and Norway than to that of Denmark and particularly Iceland The rank correlation coefficient of Sweden vs, Finland and Norway are as high as 0.86 and 0.82 Denmark's R&D structure, on the other hand, seems closer to Finland’s than to that of the other [Nordie counties

d0