The average percentage of innovation
For the year 2000 the investigation included only the 15 states members of EU. Since 2001 the investigation has been extended to the candidate and associated countries (including Romania).[1] A 2002 research places Romania in the group of countries in "continuous fall."[2] In 2004 and 2005 the situation is the same. The 2005 study generates another typology (the same two axes):
a) innovative global leaders;
b) performers in the second position ("next-best-performers");
c) countries that have challenges position ("follower-countries");
d) laggard countries ("logging countries").
Taking index "performance" as a criterion for innovative global comparison (maximum = 1), Romania ranks last (= 0.11), first was Finland (0.78). EU 25 average was 0.50, Japan 0.70 and the U. S. 0.67.[3] It is understood that in relation with the specific situation of its economy, each country member of EU will process different the environment that will enable and its design own contexts.
Thus, the contexts of European Union member countries will differ and their differentiated strategies will correlate. Even the EU has drawn attention to these issues. The famous "Kok Report," specifying the five areas of action (knowledge society, internal market, business climate, labor market and sustainable environment), warned that "Member States need to progress in one or more of these areas of policy priorities, but none can have consistent success on the whole front."[4] A 2007 study placed further Romania in the last group.[5] On the "Kok Report," EU Council of Europe (Brussels, 22 to 23 March 2005) published a comprehensive document aimed at "relaunching Lisbon Strategy: a partnership for growth and employment" in which they also accentuate the idea of specificity of each national strategy. "Member countries should develop their innovative policies in light of their specific characteristics."[6] The national strategies in line with the European strategy, created "national reform programs" based on "whole economic policy," while the EU represents two sides of the same problems.[7] The developing context is therefore directly related to strategy formulation in its entirety.
A well formulated strategy involves at least the following main aspects:[8]
1) Awareness of the basic needs of the population of a country;
2) key competitors and positioning a country's economy towards them;
3) Consider all participating actors with different roles and supporting their development;
4) Analysis and evaluation of the expertise available (the actors, enterprises, geographical areas);
5) Good knowledge and taking into consideration of trade and innovation technology of the moment;
6) Training (in view of current and future) of people involved in developing strategy;
7) Prepare, with priority, of top managers, professionals who will act on the strategic management;
8) Evidence of its results (positive and negative) on the implementation and realization of the actions and performance feedback;
9) Ensure a balance between basic processes of strategy (formulation of the strategic intention, strategic evaluation and analysis of available alternatives);
10) Good design, based on a SWOT[9] analysis, of strategy;
11) Consideration of external support.
The Strategy content is considering processes and different factors (Figure 5):
Figure 5 Strategic content[10]
Strategy formulation involves three related activities (Figure 6): intention, evaluation and choice in these activities, macroeconomic theories play an important role, being the cornerstone of strategic thinking.
Figure 6 Elaboration of the strategy[11]
The strategic intent is a basic component in strategy elaboration, involving a comprehensive approach to the complex environment in relation to goals, vision, mission, the priorities which the strategy intend to implement (Scheme 7).
Scheme 7 Strategic intent[12]
The evaluation refers to the processes of analysis of available actions on criteria of desirability, advantages, disadvantages, opportunities - risks.
The vision is a strategic construction describing and evaluating of the present and the future trends and reporting on a country (group of countries) or firms in a given situation. For example, the European Union while developing "Lisbon 2000" gave this picture of this and future and the environment in which it will relate to those taking place in the world: "The European Union faces a series of changes resulting from challenges of globalization and new economy driven by knowledge. These changes affected every aspect of people's lives and require a radical transformation of European economy. The Union must shape these changes in a conscious way with values and concepts of society and also the forthcoming enlargement."[13]
The mission expressed in a focused way what is supposed a macroeconomy (or firm) to obtain on the implementation strategy. The strategy of EU expresses the mission as follows: "The Union has developed today a new strategic goal for the next decade: to become the most competitive and dynamic economy in the world, based on knowledge, capable of sustainable economic growth more and better jobs and greater social cohesion."[14]
Strategic Assessment - the second component of the strategy development -aims to correlate (and select) the alternatives for future (made by strategic intent) of reality (what is affordable and desirable).
Internal assessment refers to value judgments on the state of a national economy, resources, structure actions, environmental quality of macroeconomic business etc.
External evaluation has as object the external environment of a macroeconomy, the processing of it in the transition from environment to context. The strategic assessment answers the question "Where are we now?" and it depends largely on the strategic intent (which answers the question "Where we want to go?" (Figure 7)
The incentives ("triggers") are different: the conscience of a gap ("gap") between expectations and outcomes can become a stimulus for new thinking and new strategy, the arrival of new rulers, the requirement to meet challenges coming from the environmental requirements of EU developed and become targets to member countries etc.
Figure 7 Development of strategy evolution[15]
Implementation of strategy and its achievement involves: dissemination of strategy and among actors execution and population, defeat (or avoid) resistance to change, verification strategy and possibly making some corrections, change management processes, alliances with various stakeholders, cooperation with other countries, etc. It is clear that the macroeconomic strategy, as a correlation with strategy overview of a country is a vital necessity. In connection with this requirement, macro-economic theory must correlate the processes and factors governing the decision expressed by governance (not only government).
Macroeconomic strategies are well integrated elements in political strategies, subordinated to unified policy vision and mission. "To the same extent that it supports macroeconomic stability and stimulates endowment growth and macroeconomic policies in order to accelerate the transition towards a knowledge-based economy, which implies an enhanced role to given structural policies."[16]
- [1] *** (2001), Cordis - focus, supplement, m18, European Innovation Scoreboard, 7-10.
- [2] *** (2004), Innovation Scoreboard. Innovation Technology Transfer, m4, 8, 9.
- [3] *** (2006), Global Innovation Scoreboard. (GIS) Report, European Trend Chart on Innovation, Dec., 11.
- [4] *** (2004), Facing the Challenge The Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Employment, Report from the HightLevel Group. Chaired by Wim Kok, Nov., Luxemburg, 7. (europa.eu.int)
- [5] European Innovation Scoreboard. Comparative Analysis of Innovation Performance, Pro Inno Europe, 2008.
- [6] Presidency Conclusions. European Council Brussels (22 and 23 March 2005), Ex.4335, 4.
- [7] *** (2004), "Revitalizing the Union's Backbone," Innovation and Technology Transfer, m5, 3.
- [8] Hugh Macmillan, Mahen Tampoe, op. cit., 66-8 (adapted from the work mentioned).
- [9] See theme dedicated to methods.
- [10] Ibid, 164.
- [11] Ibid., 65.
- [12] Ibid., 8.
- [13] *** (2000), Lisbon European Council 23 and 24 March, point 1. europort.eu.int/ summits/previ ous. Htm
- [14] ibid., 5.
- [15] Ibid., 83.
- [16] *** (2000), Lissim European Corneille 23 and 24 March, point 22.
