Tropes

Budapest Peer Review_Hungary_v3.pdf

Hungary: Towards a National S3 strategy Balázs Borsi (Ministry for National Economy) Budapest, 25 june 2013 Source of map: wikipedia The questions we would like the peer critical friends to discuss: How can the RIS3 process be tailored to a country, with substantial economic and social disparities and with no real economic regions (apart from the Capital region? In terms of RDI-focused planning, evaluation and monitoring, how can the leap frogging expected by the S3 process designers be governed in countries lacking such experience? What are the good practices of CONCRETE examples of formulating a specialisation agenda? Why are they good examples? If possible, examples for innovation leaders and moderate innovators would be of help. What will happen if the S3 design and implementation process fails? Will there be drawn conclusions and additional mechanisms introduced also at EU levels? If yes, what are the likely organisational/institutional arrangements to do so? How would you define non-performing investments in the S3 context? 2 Summary Innovation Index (SII) Source: Innovation Union Scoreboard 2013 The gap is significant between leaders and moderate innovators Mapping the problem areas Hungary's new research and innovation strategy With the active support of Hungarian RDI policy, the key players of the National Innovation System strengthen and become invaluable partners in global innovation systems. By capitalising on spillover effects, they boost dynamism in the whole of the national innovation system. Thereby, they make a substantial contribution to the competitiveness of the Hungarian economy, making it a sustainable knowledge economy Investment in Our Future The National RDI Strategy 2020 Main objective: GERD/GDP ratio shall reach 1. 8%by 2020 (from business sources) Hungary's innovation performance should reach the EU average by the end of the decade. In 2020 in Hungary+30 larger R&d labs are in the world elite, +30 global MNC centres of R&d are deployed, +30 R&d intensive macro-regional medium-sized firms produce value added, +300 RDI and growth oriented SMES compete on global markets, +1000 innovative SMES have received substantial support, A substantially larger number of supplier SMES have business links with the MNCS in the economy. Objectives in the National RDI Strategy 2020 used already in the EDIOP GINOP planning Smart specialisation the planning framework Investment in our future: the National RDI Strategy 2020 National S3 Strategy 2020 Regional S3 strategic planning Regional S3 strategic planning Regional S3 strategic planning Regional S3 strategic planning Regional S3 strategic planning Regional S3 strategic planning Regional S3 strategic planning Bottom-up processes: vertical priorisation Top-down vision building Step 1. Step 3. Step 2. Step 4. also involves coordination with science policy) Synthesis RIAS constitute the information base for implementation as well Substantial challenges at the regional level (1) Economic borders and administrative borders do not coincide The Central Hungary region has an outstanding weight in the Hungarian innovation system Innovation at the regional level-Regional Performance Groups Source: Proact Policy Outlook (2008) LAU-1 regions (sub-region) in Hungary by innovative capabilities Source: computations by Zoltán Bajmócy and research team. In: Borsi andbajmócy (2009: Quantitative lagging behind, qualitative catching up? Közgazdasági Szemle LVI évf. 2009. október Substantial challenges at the regional level (2) Overall, 4 types of Hungarian NUTS-2 regions can be distinguished: Fully functional RIS: Central Hungary Part of fully-functional Western RIS: Western and Central Transdanubia Underdeveloped RIS type 1: Northern Hungary and Southern Transdanubia Underdeveloped RIS type 2: Northern and Southern Great Plain NUTS-2 regions prepared strategy documents In January-February 2013, the Regional Innovation Agencies prepared strategy documents, following the steps described in the S3 guidance documents: 1. Analysis of the regional context and potential for innovation 2. Governance: Ensuring participation and ownership 3. Elaboration of an overall vision for the future of the region 4. Identification of priorities 5. Definition of coherent policy mix, roadmaps and action plan 6. Integration of monitoring and evaluation mechanisms Consultations in NUTS-2 regions about the strategy documents In depth interviews (82) with stakeholders+workshops were organised during the process Synthesising the regional S3 strategy documents and building the national S3 framework After collecting the regional S3 strategy documents, analysis of four areas at the national level: RDI-based synergies between regional plans ongoing Analysis of sectoral strategic white papers and other past achievements ongoing Regional governance structure (embedded into national STI coordination) ongoing International and EU linkages to be done R&d and innovation infrastructure ongoing Alignment of the national RDI Strategy and the S3 synthesis strategy Elaboration of metrics and indicators Social consultation of the National S3 Strategy 2020 in the regions (end of Summer) Finalisation and submission to the Commission (end of October) The coordination between the regional and national levels is challenging. National framework for developing the final regional S3 specialisation mix (draft version only!**Specialisation directions 1. multidisciplinary and technology fusion-driven transformation of science and/or KET development 2. New knowledge driven lifestyle and health 3. Network-based and value chain learning economy, industrial based innovation Central Hungary A globally competing region tackling all? Western Transdanubia (Regions with relatively strong, and globally relevant industry networks and connected higher education/research) Central Transdanubia Southern Transdanubia (Some sporadic industry players yet weak economy in general, higher education and research is (usually) locally important and relevant ) Northern Hungary Northern Great Plain (Economy is the least competitive, strong (often interdisciplinary) research with international connectivity) Southern Great Plain???*before detailed processing of the regional strategy documents and finalisation of the synthesis Required strategic integration for RDI-based growth (only the main and RDI-relevant funding sources are illustrated) Investment in our future: the National RDI Strategy 2020 National S3 Strategy 2020 National Science Policy Strategy 2020 1. Innovation Fund 2. Block funding 3. EDIOP (or GINOP) 4. Tax measures 1. EDIOP (or GINOP) 2. HRDOP (or EFOP)(+Block funding for science) ICT strategy Entrepreneurial dynamics a historical challenge Interpretation of the‘entrepreneurial process of discovery':'Ideally it resembles Quadruple Helix dynamics, whereby regions behave like entities and can make decisions like corporations do and through the entire‘process, 'business actors take a leading role. Note the specific regional context in Hungary It is common sense specialisation what is worth to invest in? Examples and potentials: there are only local examples, such as BKIK and the start-up community, Kecskemét and the Mercedes factory, or Pannon Nóvum RIS Involvement of the business community in developing the RIS3: In practice, only short time was available (but there is an attempt to extend the involvement during Summer and beginning of Autumn) questionable execution of bright ideas in the RDI domain has made historically business actors less willing to get involved Tackling the challenge: the regions'involvement Regional consultation of the National RDI Strategy took place in November-December 2012 The regional S3 strategy documents were prepared with the involvement of the local business community in the discussion process Grand project ideas were collected from the regions and are being processed Governance The RIS3 design process is coordinated by the Department for Innovation and R&d (Ministry for National Economy) and the National Innovation Office For the National RDI Strategy, there was a consultation body, the Innovation Advisory Council, involving different actors For the RIS3 process, there is a partnership between the Regional Innovation Agencies and the Ministry Relevant actors at the regional level are identified and approached by the RIAS. They were engaged in the development of the strategy more than in the past, however, it is far from involvement levels in more developed economies/societies National and regional governance bodies and mechanisms are still to be defined High-level S&t policy coordination body is to be introduced For S3 a fully centralised governance system at the national level is planned Chief scientists for facilitating public-sector RDI is to be introduced in the ministries at deputy-secretary level Future governance mechanisms to facilitate an entrepreneurial process: Social consultation still in this planning phase and if time and resources allow, a delphi-survey Involvement of business and civil actors in the governance Flexibility mechanisms are already part of the National RDI Strategy. In terms of S3 prioritisation, flexibility mechanisms are to be designed Digital Growth Priorities The Digital Growth Strategy (National Infocommunication Strategy 2014-2020) is being finalised and goes for public consultation process these days The following target intervention areas have been identified: Digital infrastructure a horizontal area Digital competencies (e-literacy+e-inclusion) Digital economy (innovative developments, e-governance, digitalisation of contents, e-services, RDI ) Digital state The Digital Agenda for Europe have been taken into account in depth Accompanying indicators are identifed and are being finalised The regional aspects for the digital growth agenda are distinguished not, priorities are set on the national level Implementation and Budget The National RDI Strategy is implemented in biannual action plans KTIA (Research and Technological Innovation Fund) an annual EUR 170 million EDIOP GINOP=HUF 500 bn (EUR 1, 7 bn) for the 7 years Tax measures The National S3 Strategy is implemented using the EDIOP GINOP and the KTIA first of all, but CHOP VEKOP also has its role The flexible framework is planned to be maximised for CHOP VEKOP 15%of the above Synergies between different policies and funding sources are still being designed, including role of financial instruments (such as Jeremie, seed funds, combined grants/loans etc.)Relevant stakeholders are to be involved in the implementation stage as members of advisory board (national and/or regional, to be defined, see the slides on governance) Private R&d+I investments are stimulated foremost by the National RDI Strategy (tax measures+collaborative R&d), for the S3 process, such options have not yet been explored Implementation is planned as part of the central EDIOP GINOP Managing Authority (an S3 unit), however, details are still to be worked out RIAS would play role in monitoring and project generation Coordination to be ensured by a monitoring committee The EDIOP GINOP measures under priority axis 2 Development of the knowledge economy Measure 1: Support of business RDI activity Measure 2: Support of strategic RDI collaborations and initiatives Measure 3: Promotion of scientific and technological excellence, support of international R&d connections The planned interventions of the measures are aligned fully with the RDI Strategy coordination with the S3 plans is ongoing Measuring the progress Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms: Monitoring indicators for the national level are to be developed during 2014 Indicator collection for the RDI Strategy is planned to be the monopoly of the RDI Observatory in the National Innovation Office Independent evaluation is an integral part of the National RDI Strategy A similar approach is to be elaborated for the S3 process, including a review of the strategy based on the evaluation outcomes to weed out non-performing investments Challenges in relation to monitoring at regional level Whether or not the required integration of the monitoring systems will be possible Whether or not enough time and resources can be dedicated to developing an indicator system, that is, among others, relevant for all evaluations foreseen Source of the wheel design: S3platform/Eurada Summary and next steps For the Hungarian socioeconomic context, a top-down planning combined with bottom-up building of technological and sectoral priorities was chosen The national RDI Strategy, the national S3 strategy, the Science Policy Strategy and the ICT Strategy constitute an integrated planning framework for RDI based growth A common specialisation planning framework is being developed using the regional strategy documents, however, the OPS cannot wait for the final S3 plans, therefore, continuous information flow is ensured When the national level synthesis is finished, a regional and national social consultation is planned to reinforce participation of the regional stakeholders What is needed (in the short and medium term) to develop and implement a good RIS3 in Hungary? Conclude the planning process and establish a governance structure that is linked both to the RIS3 process and the National RDI Strategy Develop and start running a monitoring framework suitable for data collection and analysis throughout the 2014-20 period Use of evaluations in a‘smarter'way Useful activities include organisation of high-level meetings, where decision makers regularly meet the dilemmas of experts and learn from each others'practices Awareness and supportive environment How aware of the processes and supportive are: Hungarian politicians? the regional/national administrations? the business community? the Hungarian government? improving rapidly The questions we would like the peer critical friends to discuss: How can the RIS3 process be tailored to a country, with substantial economic and social disparities and with no real economic regions (apart from the Capital region? In terms of RDI-focused planning, evaluation and monitoring, how can the leap frogging expected by the S3 process designers be governed in countries lacking such experience? What are the good practices of CONCRETE examples of formulating a specialisation agenda? Why are they good examples? If possible, examples for innovation leaders and moderate innovators would be of help. What will happen if the S3 design and implementation process fails? Will there be drawn conclusions and additional mechanisms introduced also at EU levels? If yes, what are the likely organisational/institutional arrangements to do so? How would you define non-performing investments in the S3 context? THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ATTENTION

< Back - Next >