country

Country

Asia-pacific (26)
Austria (131)
Brazil (5)
China (196)
Country (511)
Eu (475)
Germany (222)
Luxembourg (118)
Russia (105)
Spain (297)
Switzerland (95)
Usa (120)

Trends were appearing in terms of focus of countries at different stages of economic development with those countries with lower development levels favouring a socioeconomic focus while those with higher levels of economic development lean towards a techno-economic focus.

and other countries are subsumed often under the‘foresight'heading. For our purposes, however, the distinction between foresight and forecasting is useful. 4 See, for instance,

Especially from the perspective of small countries the adaptive element is crucial for devising policy strategies.

comparative analysis of other countries'practices can be instructive. 3. 2. 9. Phase 8: identification of individual objectives, roles and options As has been discussed above,

The AF approach as outlined in this paper is based on experience from small developed countries. But the basic argument, we contend,

nevertheless applies also to large countries. In a globalised and interdependent economy, not even the largest countries are in a position to fully dominate technoloogica development,

but need to be prepared to respond to unexpected developments. The notion of adaptivity seems also very relevant from the perspective of developing countries that strongly depend on foreign markets and technologies.

While the general process model outlined above may serve as an orientation, the question remains open of how to design AF processes that are in line with the specific situation of a country.

More specific and differentiated guidelines are needed that build on a broader range of practical experiences with the AF approach. 479 E. A. Eriksson,

Principles and general vision by countries), Econ. Ind. 341 (2001) 107 118.4 A. Tübke, K. Ducatel, J. P. Gavigan, P. Moncada-Paternò-Castello, Strategic policy intelligence:

, 1, 2), in the recognition that the engagement of stakeholders from several countries may help anticipate scientific, technological and societal developments, for example.

ii) networking for mobilizing the RTD communities in different countries and iii) priority setting for formulating promising research themes and corresponding resource allocations.

Here, tentative interests in prospective collaboration can be probed by inviting stakeholders from different countries to explore what research themes should be pursued through international joint RTD activities

/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 483 495 different countries in order to promote the competitiveness and sustainability of the European forest cluster.

the last one involves the deepest mode of collaboration as the 18 partners from eight countries (Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden,

Because the Woodwisdom-Net program will involve RTD communities from eight countries this process was designed

The engagement of RTD stakeholders from all the countries was a prerequisite for identifying research issues that reflected relevant scientific and technological developments, on one hand,

the consultation processes had to recognize multiple interfaces among the RTD stakeholders from eight different countries.

In Woodwisdom-Net, scalability meant that the consultation process had to deal with varying amounts of contributions from large number of stakeholders in different countries.

In each country, the National Coordinator of the consultation process was responsible for effective communication. For example, he/she invited Researchers

Furthermore, the process engaged an extensive set of RTD stakeholders from eight countries, most notably Researchers and Industrial leaders:

from each participating country, prominent Researchers and Industrial leaders were invited to three interactive workshops to discuss

The main phases are summarized in Table 1. Over 400 stakeholders from all participating countries participated in the process.

In the first phase, National Coordinators invited Researchers in their respective countries to submit research issues through the Internet questionnaire. 8 These questionnaires were implemented by using Opinions-Online decision support tool9

In total, well over 200 Researchers from the participating countries submitted research issues. 3. 2. 2. 2. Assessment of research issues from the research perspective.

In each country, thenational Coordinators identified one representative from wood-material-based industry and one member of the research community and invited these to the workshops.

based on the quality of solicited research issues and the workshop discussions (approx. 1 h). Towards the end of the workshop, the results from these questionnaires were compiled separately for each country

Thus, the funding organizations could see how the results based on the representatives of their own country may have differed from those of all expert assessments.

Here, one of the benefits of a bottom up process is that the wealth of information generated can be made available to the participants from other countries.

for instance by encouraging the research groups to respond to calls for proposals in a full awareness of what other groups in other countries have shared interests.

From the administrative perspective, the geographical distances between participants from many countries make it impossible to organize participatory workshops for them all:

, participating countries, thematic sub-areas, levels of aggregation, modalities of research), which in turn leads to processual requirements such as modularity and scalability.

Among the OECD countries, regulatory impact assessment gained a certain momentum after the publication of the OECD report on best practices in impact assessment 2. The growing interest in RIA in other countries, especially in Europe 3

as well as the political capital invested in regulatory management systems now established in most OECD countries. Second, there is a growing interest in exploring how regulatory policies can be based more evidence

and are meanwhile also obligatory in the European union 5 and some other industrialised countries prior to the final release of new policy measures,

These indicators allow the creation of comparisons between scientific and technological fields, between countries, organisations, and over time.

We start with some studies performed in Germany or German-speaking countries. In a survey conducted in 1998 among companies of 12 manufacturing sectors in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, 2 Nevertheless,

However, in other countries, like the United kingdom, France and The netherlands 31, the national SDOS set up similar agendas.

countries and over time Little information about possible types of regulation Detailed analysis allows the identification of specific regulation-relevant content

Best Practices in OECD Countries, OECD Publications Service, Paris, 1997.3 R. E. Löfstedt, The Swing of the Regulatory Pendulum in Europe:

Evidence from G-7 Countries, Industry Canada, Ottawa, 2004.28 A. Bassanini, E. Ernst: Labour Market Institutions, Product Market Regulation, and Innovation:

but also in the fields of standards, regulation and intellectual property rights on behalf of the European commission and Ministries in Germany and other countries. 516 K. Blind/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 496 516

effectiveness, appropriateness, sustainability and additionality. 6. Understanding the dynamics of foresight systems in three countries A first attempt to understand the dynamics of foresight systems can be based on the evaluation of three foresight exercises;

and offered an example to other countries embarking up the foresight learning curve. Based on the above findings, detail can be added to the two previous figures via the addition of elaborated sets of governing factors and design principles and criteria.

and b. 7. From the impact assessment framework to the logic model The above framework can be enriched further by findings from studies of other foresight exercises in different countries,

it is essential to complete the model with findings from other foresight exercises in different countries,

Second, a huge diversity can be observed among continents (note the differences among the broad models of higher education e g. in the US, Asia and Europe), across countries on the same continent,

and even inside countries concerning the performance, funding and governance models of their higher education organisations,

12 conducting various types of research. 13 Academies emerged in some countries as early as the end of the 16th century 1, pp. 5 6,

As for the second one, suffice it to say that in some bigger EU countries e g. in Germany

or across countries, but then taking only universities belonging to the same‘league',e g. those aspiring world-class research and education,

with 30 48%of the relevant age cohort attending tertiary education in most OECD countries, we cannot speak of the same‘higher'education (HE) system.

as well as across EU countries, by taking into account the‘quality'and‘efficiency'of their research and education activities.

universities do play a leading role in a number of countries, while public labs have a non-negligible weight in several other countries. 18 Thus,

the role of these latter types of research organisations should not be ignored in policy discussions. 19 In sum,

Yet, a clear finding is that the business enterprise sector is a dominant one in the majority of OECD (and EU) countries,

and especially that of the government sector, is higher in the less developed countries (Figs. 1 2). Third, output indicators, such as publications, citations,

located in currently laggard countries likely emerge as major players. In other words, the number of the already existing types of research organisations can increase significantly,

A prime example of a potential major impact of public policies is the current initiative in several countries to‘strongly encourage'universities to patent their research results,

and engineering doctoral students coming from EU countries have firm plans to stay in the US upon the completion of their studies,

as none of the Triad regions let alone individual countries can be self-sufficient. A possible backlash against globalisation can slow down this trend,

The use of the recommendations e g. strategy formation for a specific university, strategies for the higher education sector in a region, a country or the EU is up to the decision-makers.

and thus attributes a great significance to innovation processes in the cohesion regions/countries, as well as to the wide range of policies required to promote innovation.

advanced EU member states (given the significant differences among their regions),(b) for the four‘classic'cohesion countries,

Moreover, the forthcoming enlargement (s) would add more countries and regions to this list. Fifth, promoting RTDI efforts in cohesion regions via joint research projects (funded e g. by RTD Framework programmes) does not mean that scientific excellence is compromised 45.

For a largely similar scenario, called Swiss Europe, see 18.29 Emerging countries, e g. China and India, might also become important competitors,

but a flexible interpretation of the Triad regions can easily include any relevant countries. 571 A. Havas/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 558 582 Table 2 Features of the ERIA in two

and competitiveness) and fostering cohesion Policy schemes aim at further strengthening strong regions via mobility grants Two-way traffic with strong Triad countries/regions Integration of RTDI

weak RTDI policy constituencies Insufficient, halfhearted EU-supported efforts at best to strengthen weaker innovation systems of laggard regions/countries RTDI services (information, consultancy, incubation, etc.

whether the emphasis put on cohesion goals would convince laggard EU countries/regions to consider RTDI as an important enabler of more efficient and faster catching-up,

and do not pay attention to attract talents from other countries, not even from the EU Integration of RTDI activities (across national borders) Only a few‘world-class'EU universities can join global networks at the forefront of RTDI activities Widely occurs across the EU and globally;

however, that universities are not predominant research performers in the developed OECD (and EU) countries. Not only several other players conduct research,

but in the advanced countries Business r&d units have even a bigger weight than universities. Further, as nowadays 30 40%of the relevant age group attend higher education courses, an ever larger number of higher education organisations offer mainly or only teaching.

54%of basic research expenditures are spent at universities in the OECD countries). Yet, the widely held consensus in the literature on the rationale for funding‘basic science'by public money still rests on the Humboldtian model:

in the future, Foresight, OST, London, 1999.41 B. Alesi, S. Bürger, B. Kehm, U. Teichler, Bachelor and Master Courses in Selected Countries Compared with Germany, Federal Ministry

Previous researchers have identified a number of consequences of radical innovation for the poorly prepared firm or country:

Regional foresight Strategic planning Participation Infrastructure 1. Infrastructure planning and foresight In OECD countries, most infrastructure sectors such as electricity supply, water supply and sanitation were constructed over the 20th century by implementing a narrow

They are particularly strong in OECD countries where infrastructure networks have been established since decades. In the social science literature, the couplings have been described as socio-technical regimes.

For almost one hundred years in industrialized countries, infrastructure 1151 E. Störmer et al.//Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1150 1162 organizations have been optimizing to guarantee the provision of homogeneous and affordable services.

In this paper, we argued repeatedly that infrastructure sectors represent a special case for strategic decision making, particularly in the case of OECD countries.

and in the Nordic countries is carried out at VTT, namely the Nordic Energy Research Climate and Energy systems:

A generic model of the risk assessment procedure, applicable within the Nordic countries, will initially be framed.

, Foresight in Nordic countries, in: L. Georghiou, J. Cassingena Harper, M. Keenan, I. Miles, R. Popper (Eds.),

and the creation of credible indices of progress across countries, companies and groups with common assumptions to measure progress. 3. Reducing the domain of the unknowable It is hard to imagine the consequences of a new breakthrough before it occurs.

Finland is among the countries improving her position in worldwide performance comparisons since the late 1990s and reached leading nations in early 2000s.

Fromthe start TEK included in the barometer both a comparative study of reference countries, based on indicators of past development,

in order to obtain a weighted index figure that shows the compared countries'ratings in terms of their techno-scientific competence.

In the same way other combined composite indicators determine Finland's proportional rating compared to the reference group countries in different areas of technology barometer (the content of Technology barometer 2007 is presented in Appendix B

and innovation performance of the nation. 3. Results of technology barometer 3. 1. Indicator-based comparison Statistical indicators collected from the eight countries through OECD

The barometer is used to calculate an overall ranking list for the countries analyzed. A closer look into the contents of the various sub-indicators provides interesting and useful information.

In the barometer report the sub-indicators are weighted equally for each country. However, should one want to set different priorities to some sub-indicators,

In the first three implementation rounds of technology barometer all reference group countries appear to have specific profiles of their own with strong characteristic features.

When assessing societies by information society indicators the Nordic countries particularly Finland and Sweden excel (Fig. 2). This is partly explained by vigorous investments in the development of intellectual capital.

the Nordic countries led by Sweden, retain their strong positions albeit with smaller margins, and followed by UK.

Scoring well in this section correlates strongly with the country's rating in widely used indicators of material wealth,

which at least partly is due to the country's unique social structure. According to the indicators of sustainable development Sweden, Denmark and The netherlands proved to be leading of the rated economies followed by Finland.

The significant mutual differences in the profiles of compared countries are definitely calling for a detailed analysis of the underlying causes,

7. The synthesis paints a picture of the country's progress in each indicator of two recent technology barometers.

In Fig. 3 the indicators depicting the country's longstanding above-average and further strengthening position are located on the upper right.

Fig. 2. Proportional ratings of the reference group countries. 1181 T. Loikkanen et al.//Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1177 1186 272, were 2nd year students sitting for their matriculation examination.

and to allow later comparisons between different countries and surveys. The exact questions and formulations used can be found in the full barometer report 7. The purpose of the survey is to cast light onto the respondents'valuations regarding technology, perception about current state of affairs,

According to the results, the Finnish politicians are consistently more optimistic than professional engineers or company executives about the country's techno-economic development.

others are just more indirectly filtered into the innovation system of the specific sectors in the country.

or companies in other countries dealing with crosscutting issues and future topics with a time horizon of 10 to 15 years and beyond?

and is the only parliamentary committee specifically dedicated to general future concerns in a member country of the European union,

In the next phase of our project work, we aim at delivering a sample of focused country case studies for selected member countries of the European union to analyse

in various countries and for European union Institutions. She is a member of the Global Agenda Council on Strategic foresight of the World Economic Forum. 1207 A. Volkery, T. Ribeiro/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1198 1207

CBI, Institute ofdirectors, Chambers of Commerce and their counterparts in countries other than theuk. The essence ought to be to make it possible for anyone who wishes to take part to do so

Government official Nanotechnology promises to revolutionise all industry sectors, paper production could seriously be enhanced through nanotechnology and as a small country,

and regulatory concerns begin to emerge in many countries as calls for further investigation Lock in becomes more visible as selectors wish to coordinate action:

the paper draws lessons not only for other small countries and regions hoping to use foresight,

and that would provide inputs for the country's national strategy, foster collaboration between the two main funding agencies the Academy of Finland and the Finnish funding agency for technology and Innovation (Tekes) and promote foresight and innovation activities at large.

In some countries (for example, Norway) research councils have played a key role in initiating and sponsoring foresight activities as a strategic input to funding activities.

In other countries foresight exercises have been carried out on the national level by entities (private or public) other than research councils and related organisations.*

Hence, many countries have initiated technology foresight exercises and other activities for prioritising strategic research. Sociologists have noted this development,

Following foresight exercises in many countries during the 1990s, there now seems to be a new wave of research

and in some countries also make up less than funding from private sources. Most European countrrie have research councils, research programmes or similar institutions,

It is difficult to obtain comparable statistics for research council funding activities on the scale of the European union (EU) or countries of the Organisation for Economic cooperation and Development (OECD). In Denmark,

http://www. tandfonline. com/loi/ctas20 Foresight for science and technology priority setting in a small country:

Frank Glod, Carlo Duprel & Michael Keenan (2009) Foresight for science and technology priority setting in a small country:

8 november 2009,933 951 Foresight for science and technology priority setting in a small country: the case of Luxembourg Frank Gloda*,Carlo Duprela and Michael Keenanb afonds national de la recherche, 6 rue Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, B

(2006 2007) conducted in one of Europe's smallest and wealthiest countries, Luxembourg. The country's small size brings into sharp viewmany of the underlying tensions present in those foresight exercises that explicitly attempt to set national priorities.

These tensions include the ability (or otherwise) to underpin the foresight process with sufficient and appropriate‘objectivised'knowledge (including national statistics,

The paper draws lessons not only for other small countries and regions hoping to use foresight,

1 As with other small countries, Luxembourg has limited public resources devoted to research and has a small (and young) public research base.

However, with increased recognition of the role of research and innovation in contributing towards the future development of the country,

and technology priority setting in a small country 935 Expenditure on Public research 0 20 000 000 40 000 000 60 000 000 80 000 000 100

as it was considered always to be a national strategic advantage that Luxembourg students had to go to foreign countries to study.

and technology priority setting in a small country 937 have been intended! A further related consideration concerns the need to maintain‘variety'in the S&t system,

But in small countries, this is particularly difficult to achieve across the board as many S&t areas lack sufficient‘critical mass'to keep pace with all the latest developments.

when priority setting is a country's ability to make the most of this potential.

'since future investments in research infrastructures or future changes in policies/regulations, for example, can make a significant difference to a country's ability to exploit a particular S&t thematic area.

and thematic research priorities were collected from 13 countries. The latter was combined with the findings of interviews to generate an initial‘long-list'of topics to be tested'by the research community.

and technology priority setting in a small country 939 where respondents were asked to rate research domains against a battery of‘attractiveness'and‘feasibility'criteria.

and technology priority setting in a small country 941 research was not to fall under identified research priorities.

by University of Bucharest at 05:09 03 december 2014 Foresight for science and technology priority setting in a small country 943 so-called‘competence niches'

but it is influenced also by the country's small size and a belief that this implies the need for specialisatiio

or micro-countries that there is‘compacting'of policy levels together with the‘many hats syndrome

and technology priority setting in a small country 945 manner instead, their implementation depends upon enrolment and mobilisation of advocaac coalitions around emergent agendas.

and technology priority setting in a small country 947 6. 4. Impacts on the private sector It is unclear

and technology priority setting in a small country 949 MCHER would not have been suited better to perform the study itself.

Thus, conducting foresight in smaller countries is neither easier nor more difficult than in larger countries.

many small countries have also set up and run exercises. Notable examples from Europe include Ireland, Hungary, Czech republic, Slovenia and the Nordic countries.

The EC has sponsored also pilot foresight exercises in Malta, Cyprus and Estonia as part of the eforesee project (see Crehan and Cassingena-Harper 2008).

and the Seychelles as pilot countries (see Wehrmeyer et al. 2004). 2.‘Competence niches'refer to areas of potential economic success that develop from the establishment of an exceptionally strong knowledge base in a particular domain. 3. As the GDP of Luxembourg has increased by 50%(from¤22 to 33.1 billion) between 2000 and 2006,

Technology foresight in smaller countries. In The handbook of technology foresight, eds. L. Georghiou, J. Cassingena-Harper, M. Keenan,

and technology priority setting in a small country 951 Meyer, M. 2008. The dynamics of science in a small country:

the case of Luxembourg. Science and Public policy 35, no. 5: 361 71. OECD. 1991. Choosing priorities in science and technology.

Public sector research in small countries: does size matter? Science and Public policy 27, no. 6: 433 42.

Foresighting and technology choice in small developing countries. In Paper presented at the EU US Seminar:

science, technology and innovation policies give the thematic portfolio of a country or region a greater weight again and pay more attention to long-term perspectives.

983 countries (i e. the advanced industrial nations), almost all European countries, and many Asian and South american countries have conducted national foresight studies'.

and Section 5 concludes. 2. Finnsight in context In comparison with many other countries, Finland has had an active and varied foresight scene,

because Finland is a small country: thus, some results from even seemingly isolated foresight activities can be brought to bear on policy making even in the absence of formal coordination,

These mapped a picture of FTA as an increasingly important approach in many countries across a wide range of challenges.

but growing public concern over their supposed environmental and health risks led several EU countries to demand the moratorium.

By late 1999 there were enough such countries to block any new approvals of GM produce.

and from America and other big growers ofgmcrops, the EU then persuaded the anti-GM countries to replace the moratorium with a scheme in

Since then, six countries Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary and Luxembourg have chosen to ban Monsanto MON 810 modified maize contradicting EU Commission position.

is a Consortium of 17 national research agencies from 12 countries in the European research area whose objective is the coordination of the national policies in fundamental research at the nanometric scale.

Havas and Keenan have noted a tendency in such countries for science systems to be disconnected from innovation

More recent exercises both in the countries already mentioned and also in Romania and Poland have had a more explicit objective to shape the research and innovation system.

(ii) networking for mobilizing the RTD communities in different countries and (iii) priority setting for formulating promising research themes and corresponding resource allocations 35.

Concepts and Practice, Elgar, Cheltenham, 2007, pp. 112 130.19 P. Crehan, J. Cassingena Harper, Foresight in smaller countries, in:

Concepts and Practice, Elgar, Cheltenham, 2007, pp. 216 236.20 A. Havas, M. Keenan, Foresight in CEE countries, in:

and different geographical areas (countries, regions, etc. are engaging in the foresight process. This means that special attention must be paid to the organisation of the process

industry, associations and public organisations of the five Nordic countries. EU: IRRIIS scenario workd 19 Informative Identification of emerging safety and security issues in an EU project to ensure the safety of critical infrastructures.

In the Nordic H2 Energy Foresight the major challenge was to create shared understandings on future hydrogen-based energy systems between different stakeholder groups representing five different countries.

The Nordic ICT Foresight was designed to provide a relevant platform to discuss in a structured way the future of ICT in Nordic countries.

hence this would suggest that foresight projects with open-ended diverse visions of the future are not common in these countries.

It should be noted that‘‘prospective strategique''in Francophone countries often stressed these elements, as did occasional futures studies elsewhere.)

and in several countries these small inner circles were seen also to have let down policymakers, by failing to highlight critical emerging areas (notably microelectronics

When the FTA PROCESS involves a wide range of key actors in the case of the Nordic H2 energy foresight coming from several countries there are special challenges confronted in shared knowledge creation (even in agreeing upon which of Bell's‘‘posits''to explore

This might include material such as a SWOT analysis related to the area of concern (how a country or organisation stands in relation to it

. Jorgensen, Technology foresight in the nordic countries, A Report to the Nordic Industrial Fund, Oslo, Center for Innovation and Commercial Development, Risoe-R-1362 (EN),

Countries, in: L. Georghiou, J. Cassingena Harper, M. Keenan, I. I. Miles, R. Popper (Eds.),