70106 KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY FORUM VIII Reforming Innovation Systems: Moving Beyond Lectures & Labs Fontainebleau, France • April 29 - May 1, 2009 The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Board of Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. © The World Bank, Washington, D.C. 2009 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433, USA 1.202.473.1000 1.202.477.6391 feedback@worldbank.org http://www.worldbank.org Knowledge Economy Forum VIII Table of Contents Acknowledgements ..........................................................................................................................................4 Foreword...........................................................................................................................................................5 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................6 Dealing with the Pro-Cyclicality of R&D Expenditures .........................................................................7 What do the Trends Tell Us? ..........................................................................................................................7 What Lessons Can ECA Countries Draw From the Pro-Cyclicality of R&D Expenditure?............................8 RDI Reform: A Must! .................................................................................................................................10 The Nuts and Bolts of Knowledge .............................................................................................................15 From Ivory Towers to World Class Higher Education Institutions ...............................................................15 Closing the Skills Gap .................................................................................................................................18 From Labs to Bazaars ..................................................................................................................................22 Quality Before Quantity..............................................................................................................................22 Meeting the Market’s Needs ........................................................................................................................25 Concluding Remarks ....................................................................................................................................28 References .......................................................................................................................................................30 Annex 1: KEF VIII Agenda ........................................................................................................................31 Annex 2: KEF VIII Participants-Country Delegations .........................................................................34 Annex 3: KEF VIII Speakers and Moderators ........................................................................................38 Reforming Innovation Systems: Moving Beyond Lectures & Labs Acknowledgments These proceedings highlight the key findings and that were represented by distinguished professors public policy lessons that have emerged from the from the Middle East Technical University, National Knowledge Economy Forum VIII (KEF VIII) on University of Singapore, Olin College of Engineer- Reforming Innovation Systems: Moving Beyond ing, ParisTech, Sophia Antipolis, Research Institute Lectures & Labs, held in Fontainebleau, France on of the Finnish Economy, TUBITAK, University Col- April 28-May 1, 2009. This report was written by lege London, University of Leeds, and University of Alina Tourkova, Chris J. Uregian, Smita Kuriakose Zagreb. Key international private sector contributions and Prathima Rodrigues, and has benefited from ex- came from speakers at Microsoft, Shell International, tensive contributions made by session speakers and NetVal, Double Helix LLC., Lindholm-Consult, and the rapporteurs for the concluding remarks of the Fo- Technopolis Group. rum. Fernando Montes-Negret, Lalit Raina, Itzhak Goldberg, Natasha Kapil, Jean-Louis Racine, John The Forum has benefited above all from the dialog Gabriel Goddard, Tatiana Segal, Alberto Rodriguez, on RDI restructuring and higher education conduct- Jamil Salmi, Cristobal Ridao-Cano, Bruno Lanvin, ed with delegates from over thirty countries in at- Peter Lindholm, and Stefan Schandera contributed to tendance, including: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, these proceedings. The KEF is a joint effort between Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Human Development (HD) and the Private and Finland, France, FYR-Macedonia, Georgia, Italy, Ka- Financial Sector Development (ECSPF) departments zakhstan, Kosovo, Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, Mon- of the Europe and Central Asia region (ECA). The tenegro, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Singapore, report has also benefited from the creative assistance Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uz- of Romain Falloux, who has made these proceedings bekistan. The success of this year’s event owes much visually attractive. to the constructive discussions between all the lead- ing actors that play a role in supporting innovation in The World Bank team is appreciative of the spon- their respective countries and worldwide. The World sorship and partnership of the INSEAD Business Bank is thankful for their openness, active participa- School and the support that has been extended to the tion and contributions. KEF by Dr. Soumitra Dutta, Dean of External Rela- tions, and the dedicated involvement of INSEAD’s eLab, under the guidance of Dr. Bruno Lanvin. A special note of thanks goes out to Christine Hirzel, who has skillfully and efficiently led this organiza- tional feat. The World Bank is extremely grateful to the extraordinary team of devoted professionals that facilitated the logistics of the Fontainebleau Forum, and included Christine Caurant, Virginie Bongeot- Minet, and Corinne Pierre. The World Bank would also like to extend a sincere gratitude to the CEDEP Residence for its hospitality and the guidance of Mo- nique Eleferink, who along with her team has grace- fully agreed to host the Forum’s participants and con- tributed to an unforgettable stay in Fontainebleau. The organizers sincerely value the involvement of the European Commission, UNESCO and the OECD, as well as the academic and research institute circles 4 • Knowledge Economy Forum VIII Foreword With globalization and the advancement of the In- prises (SMEs) in traditional and innovative sectors, formation age, economic development has become as its core focus. more reliant than ever on the quality of human capi- tal, the business environment and other components The 2009 Knowledge Economy Forum VIII, in Fon- of the science, technology and innovation infrastruc- tainebleau, France, was co-hosted by the World Bank ture. All these themes have found a point of reference Vice-Presidency for the ECA region together with in the concept of a knowledge-based economy, which INSEAD Business School. This year’s Forum hosted has caught the attention of the world’s academics, over 150 participants from over 27 countries1. The businessmen, and policymakers. This concept has main goal of the KEF VIII, was to devise polices to served as the cornerstone of the World Bank series of improve the efficiency and effectiveness of national international discussions, known as the Knowledge innovation systems, through the restructuring of the Economy Forum (KEF), over the last eight years. R&D sector; discuss models of delivery of world class tertiary education; and present the necessity for up- Since 2002, the World Bank’s Europe and Central grading of quality infrastructure systems across ECA. Asia (ECA) countries, the KEF has been the platform The 3-day Forum was structured around plenary ses- for discussions among national representatives of the sions, thematic expert panels with relevant country ECA countries on the obstacles and aspirations fac- case studies, and interactive roundtable discussions. ing transition economies in becoming increasingly The report highlights key messages from the various knowledge-based. The 2002 KEF, held in Paris, had sessions listed in the Agenda (Annex 1) that is in- addressed the definition of national knowledge econ- cluded at the end of this report2. omy strategies that were advanced primarily by the EU accession countries. Similarly, the 2003 KEF in We look forward to seeing you at the Ninth Knowl- Helsinki hosted discussions on issues related to the edge Economy Forum to be held with the Fraunhofer implementation of knowledge economy strategies Institute, Center for Central and Eastern Europe, in and targeted both EU accession and candidate coun- Berlin, Germany (Spring 2010). tries. A year later, in Budapest, the concept had at- tracted participants outside of the EU aspirants, and Sincerely, participants from the Balkans and Central Asia had joined the discussion regarding the role of knowledge in enhancing countries’ competitiveness. The follow- ing year, in Istanbul, representatives of 25 ECA cli- ent countries, along with representatives of youth organizations and other stakeholders, joined the Fernando Montes-Negret dialogue on how to improve the business environ- Director ment to stimulate private sector growth. The 2006 Private and Financial Sectors Development Prague Forum focused on innovation and technol- Europe and Central Asia Region ogy absorption for economic growth, while examin- The World Bank ing the emerging economies of India and China. The 2007 Cambridge Forum analyzed the “Cambridge Phenomenonâ€? and discussed the role of government 1 — A detailed list of participants, including representatives from key government ministries, industry, academia, research institutes and in supporting knowledge networks and technology international development organizations, is provided at the end of the acquisition. More recently, the 2008 Ancona Forum, proceedings in Annex 2. had chosen the evolution of industrial clusters and 2 — For more detailed information, we encourage readers to access the contributions of academics and governments in the KEF VIII materials and speaker presentations, available through the Knowledge Economy Forum Series website www.worldbank.org/ the development of small and medium sized enter- eca/ke Reforming Innovation Systems: Moving Beyond Lectures & Labs • 5 Introduction These proceedings provide an overview of the main driven agenda, a key driver of Total issues and conclusions presented at the 2009 Fon- Factor Productivity (TFP). tainebleau Knowledge Economy Forum by an out- standing group of academics, practitioners, and poli- Countries across ECA should examine cymakers3. These proceedings encapsulate the debate their RDIs to select the most appropri- that was generated by: (i) the World Bank’s most ate reform method to ensure sustainabil- recent Europe and Central Asia Knowledge Economy ity and knowledge generation, in order (ECAKE) III Report: Restructuring of Research and De- to embark on a path of quick post-crisis velopment Institutes Across the Europe and Central Asia recovery. (ECA) Region, which was put up for consultations with the Forum’s participants; (ii) the proceedings re- • Higher Education Institutions (HEIs): flect the discussion on the higher education reform Effective reform in ECA would also incor- across the ECA region, specifically the merits and porate a review of the current higher educa- challenges associated with World-Class Universities tion institutions (HEIs), in order to examine and the capacity of ECA’s HEIs to foster skills and whether the strategies pursued by HEIs in job growth; and (iii) the need for adoption of a stron- ECA are conducive to developing the appro- ger national quality infrastructure (QI) in countries priate skills in graduates to meet the market across the ECA region as a key ingredient of more demands of today and the future, thus foster- effective commercialization of research output, prod- ing national long-term growth. uct development, and exports. While World-Class Universities have The key messages that have come out of the KEF shown a tremendous success at attracting VIII are outlined below: the best and the brightest and becoming global hubs of knowledge, this model may • R&D Sector: Given the mounting competi- not be the most appropriate one for every tive pressures faced by the ECA region as a country in the ECA region. Alternative result of the global financial crisis and the models must be examined to identify a downturn in export markets, the research country-specific model that is effective and development (R&D) sector must exam- in generating knowledge and develop- ine reform options that can provide timely ing skills while integrating the national solutions to the productive sector. A priority demands for a quality tertiary education area should be the research and development system. institutes (RDIs), which should improve their results through a better allocation of More focus is needed on Science, Math resources while enhancing knowledge and and Technology across the education R&D capacity. sector in the ECA region, to ensure a capable working force is in place for the Given the experience of other countries, innovation challenges of the next gen- a period of crisis can be used to re-exam- eration. The period of crisis can be used ine national growth strategies and to ef- to effectively boost the quality of skills fectively engage on a path of reform that of the future work force, thus meeting will eliminate inefficiencies and promote the demand for such labor and promot- long-term progress by strengthening a ing future growth. There is concern that country’s commitment to a knowledge- some countries might be falling behind in educational achievement. 3 — See program, list of participants and speakers in Annex 2 and 3. 6 • Knowledge Economy Forum VIII • Commercializing Research and Diffus- Commercialization is a coordinated ef- ing Innovation: Preserving the capacity for fort between industry, policy environ- R&D while ensuring that an abundant sup- ment, financial institutions, and univer- ply of skilled researchers is available will not sity research capacity. Thus, countries guarantee effective reform, unless there is also should put in place coordinated policies a coordinated effort to ensure that the R&D that target these components and align output that is produced in the lab, finds its incentives, rather than advance piece- way to the market and generates returns for meal programs. the researcher, the institute, and the national economy. A separate day of the Forum was dedicated to each of This can be encouraged by ensuring these key messages, allowing participants to engage countries adopt and enforce interna- in discussions and debates on the merits and short- tional standards as well as proper finan- comings of these strategies. cial incentives for the research commu- nity are in place. Dealing with the Pro-Cyclicality of R&D Expenditures An economic and financial crisis affects all aspects committed to advancing the R&D sector and the of a national economy. Government budgets deterio- knowledge-driven agendas, but are faced with mount- rate as revenue falls and some expenses rise. Thus, ing economic pressures. The first session explored the many SMEs close or cut their activities. As the global experiences of countries that have gone through eco- economy contracts and primary commodity prices nomic turmoil before (including Finland and Korea) fall, the revenue of export producers also declines, and have managed to use the crisis as an opportunity and they are forced to explore ways to cut their oper- to reform and redirect their economies. ating costs. As producers lay off workers and/or opt for cheaper inputs, the tax revenue that is received by What do the Trends Tell Us? the state also falls, resulting in budget cuts for gov- ernment supported programs and initiatives, such as Evidence from previous recessions in the post research institutes and universities. As a result of job World War II era suggests that the current global losses, consumer’s buying power also decreases, which economic crisis will have a severe negative im- further reduces demand for goods, especially for the pact on private sector innovation activities in the newer technology that may have emerged from recent short-term. Figure 1 above summarizes the move- R&D initiatives4. Thus, as a result of the economic ments of GDP, private sector (industry) research and slowdown, sectors of the national economy, such as development (R&D) expenditures and innovation the R&D sector, become highly vulnerable. outputs such as European Patent Office (EPO) pat- Given the background of the current financial crisis, ents and US trademarks between 1982 - 2008 in the the opening day of the Knowledge Economy Forum OECD economies. Industry R&D is shown to be VIII addressed the global trends and their implica- pro-cyclical, with innovation outputs such as patents tions for those countries in the ECA region that are and trademarks following a similar trend as a conse- quence. Data from 2008 already shows that venture capital was falling consistently in the first three quar- 4 — Technology is often seen as a luxury item, with high elasticity ters before a precipitous decline in the final quarter measure. Thus a small change in price can lead to a dramatic change when the global financial crisis fully took hold. in quantity of the item bought by the consumer. Reforming Innovation Systems: Moving Beyond Lectures & Labs • 7 Source: Dirk Pilat, OECD, KEF VIII, Plenary I. The onset of the current crisis has already forced to other negative impacts on private sector inno- many firms to reduce or refocus their R&D invest- vation. The sharp declines in global trade resulting ments, with small firms hit particularly hard. Re- from the crisis has directly affected global innovation cent OECD data collected from the fourth quarter of networks and increased the risks of protectionism. In 2008, as presented by Mr. Dirk Pilat, OECD suggests addition, the deteriorating economic conditions have a sharp drop in R&D expenditure of certain large reduced firms’ incentives for innovation, with con- companies in OECD economies. Many other firms sumers moving away from more expensive goods and have changed the focus of their investments to lower- services, thus often reducing the profit margin for risk “developmentâ€? projects and away from research new innovations. At the same time, the volatile price projects that tend to be higher-risk. Meanwhile, the of oil has blunted the economic incentives for the crisis has hurt innovation resulting from small firms private sector to invest in environmentally-friendly in three main ways. First, the fall in demand has led innovations such as renewable energy technology. As to a disproportionately sharp increase in bankrupt- the crisis has spread beyond countries with weakened cies and insolvencies among small firms. Second, in- financial sectors, it has made painfully apparent the creased investor risk aversion and the ensuing credit underlying structural problems in different sectors, crunch have predictably reduced the availability of in particular some manufacturing sub-sectors (i.e., capital for high-risk R&D by small firms or start-ups. the automotive industry) and economies that had Third, there are substantially fewer exit opportunities relied excessively on the self-reinforcing and bubble- for investors in young and successful innovative firms creating growth of the real estate and financial sec- through Initial Public Offerings5. tors. The spread of the crisis from the financial sector What Lessons Can ECA Countries Draw to the real economy and across countries has led From the Pro-Cyclicality of R&D Expen- diture? 5 — For more details see Dirk Pilat’s presentation at www.worldbank. org/eca/ke under Fontainebleau Forum, Day 1: April 24, 2009. Slides In response to these challenges, governments in 5 and 6. ECA could pursue “double-dividendâ€? interven- 8 • Knowledge Economy Forum VIII tions that boost demand in the short-term and has evolved over the last 40 years from being the pri- provide the foundations for sustainable growth mary source of funding to one combining financial in the long-term. Such “double-dividendâ€? public incentives with advocacy and informational support interventions have already been undertaken in some to mobilize private resources/initiatives. In particular, OECD and or emerging economies during past cri- during the 1990s and throughout the financial crisis ses, as well as in the current one, and include: (i) well- of 1997-8, the Government continued its public in- designed investments in infrastructure, (ii) targeted vestments in higher education, programs aimed at at- public support for worker re-training combined with tracting Korean researchers from overseas and raising active labour market policies, and (iii) the easing of R&D expenditures through universities and RDIs, entry restrictions to create new markets. Over the as well as enhancing networking and information longer-term, governments should aim to use this sharing among research organizations. These efforts crisis to accelerate structural changes and move to culminated in a staggering growth in R&D perfor- a more sustainable growth path, and strengthen the mance, with science and technology articles and US credibility of their policy agendas. patents rising fourfold between 1997 and 2007. Finland’s reaction to its 1990 crisis provides some In the ECA region, Croatia has made strong ef- lessons for ECA countries today, notably on the forts to boost growth through an ambitious in- complementarity of innovation policy and struc- novation policy agenda. Linear extrapolation of tural reforms for stimulating recovery. In 1990 the average growth rates indicates that Croatia’s per Finland was hit by the deepest economic crisis of any capita income in 50 years would correspond to 60 OECD in the post-war era, with the Government re- percent of the U.S. level, an outcome reached by EU- sponse combining structural reforms with an aggres- 27 countries in 2000. Alternatively, Croatia could sive innovation policy. Finland’s structural reforms reach the same outcome in less than one-third of the included a number of major policy shifts, with a new time by raising its growth rates by 1-1.5 percentage focus on the microeconomic foundations of growth, points. To raise innovation and productivity in the diversification of economy, and enhancing export economy and by extension growth rates, Croatia has competitiveness. A previously closed and protected made strong efforts to tap into its under-exploited economy was re-oriented towards integrating in the knowledge resources, focusing on four main objec- knowledge economy through greater competition, tives: (i) raising R&D expenditures by encouraging labor mobility, and incentives for individuals and private R&D; (ii) enabling the absorption of human firms to join the knowledge economy. A necessary resources demanded for the research and develop- complement to these reforms was the Government´s ment sector; (iii) facilitating the commercialization new innovation policy with counter-cyclical public of research; and (iv) enabling the enterprise sector to investment in knowledge and R&D substituting for further absorb technology, particularly ICT. the fall in private investment, which aimed to ensure that the accumulated knowledge stock existing in in- These efforts should be bolstered with further dividuals and firms was not lost and was strengthened structural reforms to facilitate recovery and bet- as a basis for future economic growth. New institu- ter position Croatia for the upturn. Notwithstand- tions, financing, and market-competitive incentives ing the substantial public investment in innovation, were put in place. there are some remaining structural challenges in the higher education and research sectors that prevent the Similar to Finland, Korea maintained its long- maximization of the returns to these investments. In term strategic public investment in education addition, there are regulatory bottlenecks for the de- and R&D through an economic crisis in order to velopment of a venture capital industry, while public strengthen the long-term foundations of growth. R&D institutes need to be restructured by reducing Education, R&D and strengthening the human re- their reliance on earmarked funding. Furthermore, as sources in R&D have consistently been a central part work by Paulo Guilherme Correa of the World Bank of the Korean Government´s growth agenda since has shown, developing stronger researcher-level in- the 1960s, even while the role of the public sector centives and a pro-entrepreneurship mindset among Reforming Innovation Systems: Moving Beyond Lectures & Labs • 9 Source: Petri Rouvinen, Research Institute of Finnish Economy, KEF VIII, Plenary II. the scientific community are important components ger sustain inefficiencies in public expenditure and of the drive for the diversification of revenues of re- continue to divert resources to activities that are not search organizations6. Finally, a friendly investment profitable. At the same time, the loss of the institu- climate is essential for maximizing the benefits from tional knowledge that has been accumulated in the the reform of the incentive regime facing researchers RDIs should be mitigated. Thus, the governments and research organizations, but imperfections in the of the ECA countries are faced with defining a new former should not delay progress in the latter agen- reform strategy that will preserve the knowledge yet da. eliminate existing inefficiencies. RDI Reform: A Must! The second half of the first day of the Forum, ad- dressed possible reform strategies that the govern- Given the experiences of Finland and South Korea, ments of ECA can undertake to meet this complex effective shaping of a reform Knowledge Economy objective. The presentation by Itzhak Goldberg and strategy during the time of crisis can contribute to Jean-Louis Racine highlighted the findings of the the country’s recovery and even define a new trajec- study, “Restructuring of RDIs in Europe and Central tory for growth and development in the post-crisis Asiaâ€? — the third in a series of World Bank studies period. In the ECA region, this is a valuable lesson, on the ECA Knowledge Economy. This report draws as the region’s reform strategy is undeniably tied to on case studies of RDIs in several ECA countries — reforming of the R&D sector, a legacy of central Russia, Ukraine, Croatia, Serbia, Poland, Turkey and planning that has remained unchanged for decades. Bulgaria — to investigate the status of these RDIs to- As ECA countries are among some of the hardest hit day, the role they play in providing R&D services to economies by the current crisis7, they can no lon- industry, and the challenges these organizations face. The case studies show that, two decades into transi- tion, many of the RDIs that are still operating have 6 — This is referring to ongoing World Bank project in Turkey “In- novation Policy for Competitiveness and Employment Generation: made limited progress in terms of the intensity and Increasing the Contributions of Economic Developmentâ€? as led by quality of their interactions with the overall national Paulo Guiherme Correa, Senior Economist, ECSPF, World Bank innovation system and specifically in the range of ser- 7 — World Bank Global Outlook Report, 2009-2010. Europe and Central Asia Regional Summary. http://go.worldbank.org/ vices they provide to industry. The study also exposes CSHRUYEC90 areas that could be significantly strengthened in the 10 • Knowledge Economy Forum VIII Source: Gwang-Jo Kim, UNESCO, KEF VIII Presentation, Plenary II. Reforming Innovation Systems: Moving Beyond Lectures & Labs • 11 management and governance of the RDIs such as, The study builds on the extensive literature on en- internal incentive structures and staffing. terprise restructuring and privatization in ECA on the one hand, and on the evidence from the RDI In most ECA countries, governments provide a statistics and case studies on the other, to propose much larger share of RDIs’ funding than in OECD a strategy for reform of RDIs. The strategy is based countries, where RDIs sell a significant share of on their relevance to national priorities, their expect- their knowledge to the private sector (Figure 4). ed role as providers of public versus private goods, Not only does this reduce the relevance of ECA’s their performance levels and their relation to relevant RDIs to their national economies but it often results markets and users. When deciding on what owner- in RDIs which are both highly under-resourced and ship and management structure can provide the right not a good value-in-money proportion. This reduces incentives for RDIs, governments need to make a their capacity of retain and attract skilled personnel. A distinction between RDIs that provide mainly public number of RDIs in ECA spend very scarce resources goods vis-à-vis RDIs already selling or with the poten- on marketing and business development and a large tial to sell mainly private goods and services. Another share of resources on strategic research with no im- essential distinction is between RDIs whose products mediate commercial application. Further, these RDIs and services are developed in response to concrete lag (often far) behind OECD RDIs in terms of several market demands (“market pullâ€?) and those RDIs performance indicators, such as patenting, licensing, whose R&D is self-initiated (i.e. supply-driven), le- business income and publications. These RDIs also veraging a core capability to come up with the tech- publish less in international journals when compared nology (“technology pushâ€?). This latter dimension is to OECD RDIs and these publications have a much of particular interest to ECA RDIs because it strongly lower impact (measured by the citations, see Figure differentiates them from OECD RDIs, which tend to 5) than their OECD counterparts. be more demand-driven. Figure 6 shows the continu- Note: 2004 data used for Croatia, Romania, Malaysia and Turkey. 2005 data used for all other countries. Source: ECA KE III Report: Restructuring of Research and Development Institutes in Europe and Central Asia, World Bank, 2009, p.13 12 • Knowledge Economy Forum VIII Note: based on 2003-2007 averages and the report’s authors’ calculation using the Scientific Citation Index. Source: ECA KE III Report: Restructuring of Research and Development Institutes in Europe and Central Asia, World Bank, 2009, p.44. um between private and public goods production on ments to decide which RDI should remain govern- the vertical axis, and on the horizontal axis the clas- ment owned and government operated if the RDI sification of RDIs by their relation to their relevant produces a large share of public goods (Quadrant I), markets/users. Within this continuum a classification government owned but operated by contractors or of RDIs is made that can serve as a basis for govern- organized as autonomous non-governmental entities Source: ECA KE III Report: Restructuring of Research and Development Institutes in Europe and Central Asia, World Bank, 2009, p.62. Reforming Innovation Systems: Moving Beyond Lectures & Labs • 13 (Quadrant II), restructured or closed (Quadrant III) Insider Restructuring of Government-owned RDIs: or privatized to insiders or to outsiders, if the RDI is Under this option, the government restructures the mostly producing private goods (Quadrant IV). RDIs with the help of its current management by spinning off non-core activities, but maintains its The study identifies five reform options that could be ownership. Ownership after restructuring under this arrived at by means of the decision framework that is option will remain in the hands of the government shown in Figure 7. These options were later discussed while control will remain in the hands of the current with the participants of KEF VIII in separate round management. It is not clear, however, who will be table discussions, and are summarized below. the residual claimant, if there are any profits, which might be the case in the more commercial RDIs. Corporatization and Increased Autonomy of Govern- ment RDIs: Under this option, the government main- Government-owned, Contractor-operated (GOCO): tains its ownership and management of RDIs but Under this option the government contracts out the tries to increase their effectiveness by granting them management of the RDI to an outside contractor more autonomy. Governments are interested in this but maintains government ownership. With man- option for RDIs producing public goods with strate- agement contracts, responsibility for managing, op- gic implications such as defense, nuclear, standards, erating, and developing an entity is transferred to a etc. that have no private or commercial, current or contractor or investor from the private sector for a prospective clients. The disadvantage of this option is period of time that receives payments for these ser- that the increased autonomy of government-owned vices, while the level of public funding for operating RDIs has a high scope for rent seeking and leaves and investment expenses are agreed upon unresolved the issue of interaction between private and public stakeholders. Insider or Outsider Privatization and/or Closure: The privatization and/or closure option is relevant Note: based on 2003-2007 averages and the report’s authors’ calculation using the Scientific Citation Index. Source: ECA KE III Report: Restructuring of Research and Development Institutes in Europe and Central Asia, World Bank, 2009, p.63. 14 • Knowledge Economy Forum VIII to Quadrants III and IV, where private knowledge- restructuring RDIs, Government Owned Contractor based goods and services provide a revenue stream to Operated (GOCO) was conceptually most attractive. run an RDI on a purely or mostly commercial basis. However, the option faces implementation challenges Methods of “privatizationâ€? for public enterprises in- and may be unrealistic due to the agency risks associ- clude sale through public subscription, sale of shares ated as well as the potential lack of skilled managers to employees or sale to a strategic investor. If none that could be contracted and legal constraints. of the other options can resolve the problems of an RDI, the last resort is closure. Obviously, politically Another key point emerging from roundtable dis- this is the most difficult option. cussion is that while restructuring RDIs is impor- tant, the process needs to be gradual and should KEF VIII attendees, all of whom participated in be undertaken on a case by case basis engaging all the round table discussions, felt that no single so- stakeholders. There should be progressive shift of lution would suit all RDIs. The distinction between public sector funding and from statutory funding to public and private was not unambiguous and it may competitive funding. The only solution for unpro- be difficult to put RDIs into the predefined quad- ductive RDIs would be closure/liquidation, but these rants. This was also reflected in Professor Radosevic’s are also the least feasible politically. Governance is presentation that suggested that the separation be- linked to the incentive system: management, benefits tween public and private funds and market pull and system, and career development all need to be lined technology push are difficult distinctions to make. up to motivate researchers, making their outputs/in- Each RDI should have a mission statement that novations commercially more viable. The participants serves as its guiding principle. There is a need to dis- expressed an interest in learning of successful cases tinguish among various institutes and RDIs, HEIs, of GOCO, more details regarding grant schemes for and private R&D firms could not be gauged the same collaborative research and the development of new metric. In terms of the various options put forth for scientific fields and RDIs in new directions. The Nuts and Bolts of Knowledge While effective reform of the R&D sector is crucial only of possessing some of the world’s best students, to the sustainability of national knowledge-agen- but also some of the world’s best faculty, curricula, da, ensuring that the higher education produces research capacity, and budgets. These institutions capable researchers is another critical component have surely become the best of what they can be, but of effective reform. Governments are becoming in- this a model that not every university must and can creasingly aware of the important contribution that strive for. Are there other paradigms that might be high performance, world-class universities make to more appropriate given specific national and eco- global competitiveness and economic growth. There nomic context? Additionally, it is virtually impossible is growing recognition, in both industrial and devel- for every university in the country to become World oping countries, of the need to establish one or more Class, so what are the focal points of a national cur- world-class universities that can compete effectively riculum that should be supported in order to advance with the best of the best around the world8. the country’s agenda of research excellence, innova- tion, and growth? These questions shaped the debate The world’s leading universities such as Harvard and of the second day of the KEF VIII, which addressed Massachusetts Institute of Technology can boast not what strategies the HEIs of ECA should be pursuing today in order to achieve their national goals of pre- paring the most capable researchers, scientists, and 8 — Salmi, Jamil. Executive Summary: Challenges of Establishing World-Class Universities. innovators for tomorrow. Reforming Innovation Systems: Moving Beyond Lectures & Labs • 15 Source: Jamil Salmi, World Bank, KEF VIII, Plenary IV. From Ivory Towers to World Class Higher ing globally competitive universities and explores the Education Institutions challenges, costs, and risks involved. The morning session opened with a presentation by In his presentation, Mr. Salmi identified key char- Mr. Claude Janssen, who fifty years ago was one of the acteristics of a world-class university, namely highly three co-founders of the INSEAD Business School. sought-after graduates, cutting-edge research, and Mr. Janssen shared his experience of establishing an dynamic technology transfer that can be attributed institution that today is renowned as one of the best overall to three main factors (Figure 8): Business Schools in Europe and the world. His vision • A high concentration of talented faculty and was of a graduate school that is known for its interna- students tional faculty and student body, rather than a French or strictly-European character. This echoed the find- • Abundant financial, education and technical ings of Mr. Jamil Salmi, who in his recent book “The resources Challenge of Establishing World-Class Universitiesâ€? (World Bank, 2009) had identified “internationaliza- • Favorable governance: a supportive regula- tionâ€? of faculty and students as a key characteristic tory framework, autonomy, leadership, and of a World-Class University. Mr. Salmi’s book out- academic freedom lines possible strategies and pathways for establish- 16 • Knowledge Economy Forum VIII Condition Upgrading existing Merging existing Creating new institutions institutions institutions Ability to attract talent Difï¬?cult to renew staff Opportunity to change the Opportunity to select the best (staff and change the brand to leadership and to attract and students); difï¬?culties in recruiting attract top students new staff; existing staff top students to “unknownâ€? institution; may resist need to build up research and teaching traditions Costs Less expensive Neutral More expensive Governance Difï¬?cult to change mode More likely to work with Opportunity to create appropriate of operation within same legal status different regulatory and incentives framework regulatory framework from that of existing institutions Institutional culture Difï¬?cult to transform May be difï¬?cult to create Opportunity to create from within a new identity out of culture of excellence distinct institutional cultures Change management Major consultation and “Normativeâ€? approach to “Environmentally adaptiveâ€? approach to communication campaign educate all stakeholders communicate and socially market the with all stakeholders about expected norms and new institution institutional culture Source: Jamil Salmi, World Bank, KEF VIII, Plenary IV. The dynamic interaction among these three sets of that surroundsâ€? World-Class education. He under- factors is the distinguishing characteristic of high- lined the overlooked importance of excellent tertiary ranking universities. A series of studies of leading education institutions that are neither research-driven universities showed that funding and governance nor operate as universities, but which can be created can account for the degree of recognition a univer- as alternative institutions to meet the wide-range of sity receives9. These findings show that the higher- education and training needs of a national economy. ranked universities tend to have greater management The high cost of creating World-Class Universities autonomy, which in turn increases the efficiency of also questions whether some national systems have spending and leads to higher research productivity. the critical mass, the capacity to benefit from such Similarly, simply investing money in an institution advanced and resource-intensive institutions, at least or making its student admissions policy extremely se- in the short term. Nations without a well-developed lective is not enough to build a world-class university tertiary education system could benefit more from an in the absence of an appropriate governance frame- initial focus on developing the best universities pos- work for the university system and strong leadership sible that address the learning and training needs of for the institution. Table 1 summarizes three possible the domestic population and economy, rather than strategies for building world-class universities that broader world-class aspirations. governments can embark on, as well as combining the strategies to create a country-specific approach. To illustrate the diversity of approaches to achiev- ing “World-Classâ€? ranking and developing high But despite the merits of creating World-Class Univer- quality tertiary education systems, speakers from sities, Mr. Salmi also echoed a note of cautionary wis- the National University of Singapore, Olin College dom about countries getting caught up in the “hype of Engineering, ParisTech, the University of Leeds, and the University of Zagreb shared their views re- garding quality tertiary education institutions and 9 — Salmi, Jamil. Executive Summary: Challenges of Establishing World-Class Universities. the key factors involved in making these organiza- Reforming Innovation Systems: Moving Beyond Lectures & Labs • 17 Source: Bruno Lanvin, INSEAD, KEF VIII, Plenary VI. tions a success. As the diversity of these views and Dr. Bruno Lanvin of INSEAD’s eLab, Mr. Hand Van speakers had shown, there is no universal recipe or der Loo of Shell International, and Mr. Andre Richi- for creating a world class university and maintaining er of the European Commission presented three dis- high standards. National contexts vary widely and tinct views (from academia, the private sector, and each country should choose a strategy that works for government, respectively) on the skills gap and its their context and plays on their strengths. There is implications faced by Europe today. international evidence of successes that higher edu- cation institutions have achieved in the past though Dr. Lanvin addressed the topic of coordinating the “the one solution fits allâ€? strategy might not work in European effort in support of the Lisbon Agenda, to most cases. Overall however, a world class university mobilize active economic and social forces around cannot come about in isolation. Integration with re- education, innovation, and knowledge intensive form, with lower levels of the education system and sectors and activities such as information and com- with the development of other supporting tertiary munication technologies10. Additionally, Europe has frameworks is key. voiced its commitment to battling discrimination and promoting inclusive societies by encouraging Closing the Skills Gap higher levels of employability and education. These regional goals raise the question if the youth of Eu- While the aspiration of each individual educa- rope is being adequately prepared to fulfil such high tion institution can play a key role in the national aspirations. Is Europe succeeding in generating or agenda, the general trends that are contributing acquiring the skills it needs to build a leading and and shaping the demand for education must also inclusive knowledge society? What is needed from be examined. Recent studies have shown that the governments, businesses, and citizens to achieve this skills that account for employability in a modern goal? economy are not found in a uniform manner across Europe, nor is the emphasis on math, science and E-skills, which account for eighty-four percent of the technology sufficient in the developed world to pro- variation in the WEF Global Competitiveness In- duce an adequate number of scientists and innova- dex, are the cornerstone of such an approach. The tors to propel the economies in the future. This is an skills that are most required can be broken down into alarming trend for national economies in the time of crisis, as it could significantly limit the region’s ability to quickly embark on a post-crisis recovery. 10 — Presentation by Bruno Lanvin, INSEAD, KEF VIII, Plenary VI. Slide 1 18 • Knowledge Economy Forum VIII Source: Bruno Lanvin, INSEAD, KEF VIII, Plenary VI. three categories; 1) Talents for the Global Knowledge of such labor. (Figure 10). Once the gap between Economy; 2) Occupational skills; and 3) Literacy demand and supply of skills decreases, an important and basic skills (math, science, IT literacy). However, opportunity for national economies will occur. It is for today’s European youth, these skills are present in essential that policymakers, educators and private a non-uniform matter and at diverse levels of com- sector representatives begin to systematically target petency. The unevenness of the skill distribution fur- the growth of skills, with the help of coordinated ther lends itself to the unevenness in a qualified labor initiatives, as the recovery takes hold. These initia- force that will be faced with the task of leading na- tives (such as the European Skill Pact or ESP) should tional economies and generating growth. See Figure include a greater focus on curriculums and policies 9 above. Having the appropriate skills to meet the that prevent talent drain during the crisis, emphasize labor demands of tomorrow is essential to not only to more math and science, seize the cleantech oppor- promote a speedy recovery out of the economic crisis tunity11, and enhance openess and mobility among that has gripped the world’s economies, but also to the labor force. ESP has been formed by European ensure a dynamic post-crisis growth. businesses and governments that have recognized the crucial importance of skills as a tool for growth, com- Given this apparent skills gap, the global crisis, coun- petitiveness and job creation. ter intuitively, actually presents an opportunity to narrow the gap. Since the global economic crisis is In its essence, the European Skills Pact consists of expected to sharply decrease the demand for such practical steps that all societal actors must undertake highly-qualified labor (as firms tend to impose hiring to help bridge the gap, including developing a Euro- freezes, reduce number of employees, and introduce pean template for private-public partnerships (PPPs) pay-cuts to cut their expenses) the demand will be brought down closer to the realistic level of supply 11 — Cleantech-the new technological direction emphasizing renew- able and eco-friendly energy Reforming Innovation Systems: Moving Beyond Lectures & Labs • 19 Source: Bruno Lanvin, INSEAD, KEF VIII, Plenary VI. responsible for re-skilling of excess labor in time of oping pupils’ social skills dominates the societal crisis; scaling-up successful PPP initiatives to enable debate on basic education, while scientific educa- innovative educators; and scaling-up business-uni- tional content is taken for granted. The reverse is versity partnerships to foster e-learning. The Euro- true in industrialized Asia and other developing pean Skills Pact is summarized in Figure 11 on the countries. A good balance between scientific and following page. value-based educational content is absolutely essen- tial for creating qualified and competent working Speaking from a private sector perspective, Mr. force. A similar unevenness is observed in the societal Hans Van der Loo further elaborated on the skills status of teachers. Empirical evidence has shown that gap facing Europe. He summarized the three trends teachers’ societal status is low in Europe and North observed by the private sector as: 1) Holistic view America, but high in industrialized Asia and some on basic education; 2) Unacknowledged role of developing countries. Thus, to create the appropriate teachers; and 3) Declining interest in Math, Sci- incentives, a teachers’ education should be coupled ence and Technology (MST). These trends were de- with his/her competence and role in social develop- rived from the OECD’s statistical data, educational ment. The last, and most alarming trend, indicates content of the European countries, and interviewee that as developing countries become more industri- indicators. Figure 12 describes some of these trends alized, young people’s interest in mathematics, sci- in greater detail. ence and technology declines, and the same trend is observed within Europe where living standards dif- These trends revealed that in Europe and North fer. This trend reveals that more needs to be done America value-based educational content in devel- to encourage students to study MST, such as linking 20 • Knowledge Economy Forum VIII Source: Hans Van der Loo, Shell International, KEF VIII, Plenary VI. Source: Hans Van der Loo, Shell International and Andre Richier, European Commission, KEF VIII, Plenary VI. Reforming Innovation Systems: Moving Beyond Lectures & Labs • 21 Source: Hans Van der Loo, Shell International and Andre Richier, European Commission, KEF VIII, Plenary VI. these skills to the current aspirations of career paths collaborative initiatives amongst schools and industry of youth, and leading by example. This can also be at all levels; local, regional, national and EU. It would partially addressed by reassessing the existing prereq- also encourage knowledge transfer tools, by facilitat- uisites for teachers in MST, and ensuring that teach- ing practical hands-on events in schools, workshops, ers qualified to teach a 21st century class are teach- conferences and internet communities to disseminate ing. experiences, ideas and knowledge. See Figure 13 on page 21 for more details on this strategy. In order to overcome this “talent challengeâ€?, Mr. Van der Loo, similarly to Dr. Lanvin, proposed the Similarly, the European Commission has also recog- creation of a pan-European Framework of Coopera- nized the need for more coordinated action in tack- tion that would identify clear goals and strategies for ling Europe’s agenda in regards to eSkills (such as encouraging a focus on skills. This would be a com- ICT practitioner skills, ICT user skills, and e-Busi- prehensive approach encompassing the whole MST ness skills). In his presentation, Mr. Andre Richier of competence supply chain with clear targets and in- the European Commission had summarized the up- dicators for all parties; students, teachers, employees to date initiatives of the Commission in regards to and employers. It would support the development of the skills agenda, which can be found in Figure 14. From Labs to Bazaars The ultimate test of effective reform in educa- Quality Before Quantity tion and restructuring will be whether the skills a country has produced, along with the research it The ability to effectively commercialize products has fostered, results in effective links to the global and services is one of the threads that ties effective market, and whether those links are able to raise RDI and HEI reform. Another essential component GDP and wealth. Thus, the questions of effective in commercialization is the ability to ensure qual- commercialization of the output of the R&D and ity standards that are up to the levels of the global diffusion of technology in the economy sector must market’s expectations. Thus, the session on Quality also be addressed. In light of these topics, Day Three Upgrading addressed the importance of a national of the Forum addressed a National Quality Infra- quality infrastructure, particularly for innovation structure (QI) issues as well as the on-going efforts to and international trade. The session presented the commercialize research in the ECA region. results of an upcoming study benchmarking the na- 22 • Knowledge Economy Forum VIII tional quality infrastructure in ECA countries against and confidence that a product, process or service best-practice institutions in OECD countries, as well meets expectations and requirements. Figure 15 on as new “qualityâ€? indicators comparing ECA country page 24 illustrates the interrelationships of the vari- products with those of their trading partners. ous elements of a National QI. Recent empirical evidence suggests that under the ECA QIs remain underdeveloped and not harmo- right conditions standards have important benefi- nized with those of their trading partners, and as cial effects on technological progress, productivity a result, create high trade logistics costs, especially and trade. Increasingly, global buyers demand prod- as they relate to border crossing procedures and ucts and services that meet rigorous standards, both administrative rules. In all transition countries of to ensure that these products and services integrate the ECA region, some form of QI did exist before the flawlessly with other components of the supply chain, transition process started, but it was designed accord- and also to satisfy final customer requirements and to ing to the logic of a planned economy. As such, three comply with a maze of technical regulations in im- features inherited from the centrally planning system porting countries. The speakers noted that increased still distinguish the QIs of most ECA countries: competition among developing countries in labor-in- tensive manufactures erodes economic returns, high- • While standards are considered purely volun- er quality markets and high value goods were increas- tary in the OECD, this concept is still for- ingly important to maintaining dynamic competitive eign to many authorities of ECA countries advantage. Globally integrated production networks, which have inherited systems in which these typically governed by buyers from developed nations, were mostly mandatory. Furthermore, these have raised competitiveness to the top of developing mandatory standards, or technical regula- countries’ policy agenda. Countries need to offer the tions, were designed from the top down and high-quality products demanded by consumers and ECA countries do not have institutions with global supply chains, and deliver them to markets a strong history of involving industry and to meet just-in-time production schedules. Diver- other stakeholders in the development of sifying and upgrading exports — be they manufac- standards, as is the case in the OECD. tured products within large supply chains, or high- value food products — means developing and more • In many ECA countries, the state still requires importantly, meeting quality and standards, and it testing and certification by state-owned enti- means addressing weaknesses in logistic, financial or ties. The integrity of these institutions is of- administrative support services. ten suspect (e.g. conflicts of interest, lack of technical capability, “unofficialâ€? payments, This is no easy task, and presents a major challenge etc), which prevents ECA’s firms from effi- both for policymakers in the region and for develop- ciently obtaining the services that will allow ment partners. The ability for firms to fully exploit it to put its products and services on internal the benefits of standards depends on a supportive or external markets. National Quality Infrastructure (QI). The term na- tional quality infrastructure denotes the public and • Prior to transition, while many OECD and private institutions required to establish and imple- EU countries were already aggressively inte- ment standardization, metrology, inspection, testing, grating and harmonizing their QIs to decrease certification and accreditation services necessary to technical barriers to trade, ECA countries provide acceptable evidence that products and ser- had developed their own QI model, many vices meet defined requirements, be it demanded by following the logic of the Soviet mandatory authorities or the market place. These domains are standards system. Today, QI institutions and interrelated and in most cases the output of more policies in countries of the EU and OECD than one will be required to provide the purchaser, are designed based on strict rules which allow user or the authorities with the required information for mutual recognition of test reports and Reforming Innovation Systems: Moving Beyond Lectures & Labs • 23 Source: Quality systems and standards for a competitive edge, World Bank. product certificates and hence facilitate trade. with decisions concerning what type of national qual- ECA countries have only recently started re- ity infrastructure will best enable their further tran- forming their QIs, and most remain isolated sition towards an internationally integrated market and unrecognized abroad. economy, but are also faced with the key challenges of how and how fast to transform the systems they have As Europe and Central Asia (ECA) countries im- inherited. Nonetheless, in describing their achieve- plement or upgrade their QIs, they must decide ments and the challenges they face in upgrading their how to cater to technological needs, minimize QIs, important distinctions need to be made accord- negative environmental, health and safety exter- ing to their economic, political and historical context nalities, and avoid unnecessary technical barriers of the different ECA countries. Some ECA countries to trade. ECA policy-makers are now not only faced are already in various stages of EU accession as EU 24 • Knowledge Economy Forum VIII Source: Riccardo Pietrabissa, NetVal, KEF VIII, Plenary VIII. members (e.g. Romania), EU candidate countries Meeting the Market’s Needs (e.g. FYR Macedonia) or as aspiring candidate coun- tries (e.g. Albania), and have already taken important A panel on commercialization of research reviewed steps towards integrating their national QIs with the the importance of linkages between university and EU model; others remain torn between maintaining industry. These linkages would ensure that the inno- their inherited Soviet systems of standards and tech- vative research done at the universities appropriately nical regulations, and adopting international models matches the needs of industry, and thus, the demands which conform to international treaties such as the of the market. Technology transfer and commercial- WTO Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreement ization need to be viewed as integral parts of a sys- (e.g. Kazakhstan). While some ECA countries start- tems framework for innovation in a knowledge-based ed to build technical expertise and capacity in their economy. Universities and industry play complemen- national quality institutions since the mid-twentieth tary roles (Figure 16). Industry develops the product century (e.g. Bulgaria) others did not inherit these while universities develop innovative ideas based on institutions after their recent independence and must research. In order to be financially sustainable, roy- build them from the ground up (e.g. Croatia). Simi- alty payments need to be shared with the inventors larly, while some larger or higher-income ECA coun- and reinvested into the funding the research. Univer- tries can make use of economies of scale to invest in sities and industry would also share risks and rewards a QI to support the needs of a broad range of eco- through “spin offsâ€?. However, financial incentives are nomic sectors (e.g. Russia), other smaller or lower- not sufficient driving forces for successful commer- income ECA countries remain bound by tight fiscal cialization at universities. Commercialization needs constraints (e.g. Armenia). to be considered a key performance variable to tenure Reforming Innovation Systems: Moving Beyond Lectures & Labs • 25 Stefan Schandera, Regional facilitator infoDev incubator initiative, ECA. VIII Knowledge Economy Forum, The World Bank and INSEAD. Fontainebleau, 01 May 2009 1. Business incubators in ECA conflicts with neighbouring countries, ICT was identiï¬?ed In many ECA countries, business incubators and technol- as an industrial policy area with both existing technology ogy parks have succeeded in initiating government pro- and resources and substantial development potential. The grams and establishing effective innovation promotion infoDev-supported EIF Enterprise Incubation Foundation instruments on national and local levels. Based on their and Viasphere Technology Park in Yerevan/Armenia have unique role as sustainable and long-term oriented innova- been playing a key role in this process. infoDev experi- tion hubs, many business incubators are now key econom- ences indicate, that effective incubation programs in ECA ic development instruments in their own right, and have require integration into the value chain of regional and for example helped attracting considerable foreign direct local innovation development programs and participatory investment. Current key focus areas of incubators through- shareholder network approaches. out the region include links to the R&D and education sec- tors, and these are often integrated in sector development On the other hand, many incubators in ECA have yet to and regional competitiveness programs. achieve sustainability along with effective competitive po- sitioning of their services. Two decades of transition often In 2005, the World Bank supported the government of also led to a legacy of external support orientation (e.g. Armenia in launching an IT development program. Given international donor support), that in many cases especial- the landlocked geographical position of the country and ly in the NGO ï¬?eld emphasizes (Continued on next page) 26 • Knowledge Economy Forum VIII (Continued from previous page) a donor and fundraising fo- more than 180 incubators and technology parks in the cus. In this context, several cases of incubation programs region. In its ï¬?rst four years of operation, this network have demonstrated that a lack of market orientation (e.g. incubated some 2,590 start-ups creating almost 40,000 competitive incubation service management skills) corre- jobs. Some 1,920 companies have since graduated from sponding with incentives for strengthening such skills can infoDev-supported incubators in ECA, employing a further lead to the failure of incubation programs. Publicly man- 30,000 people. Some of the success stories are highlighted aged incubators often face similar market skill deï¬?cits. in the box. A key recommendation deriving from these experiences would be that incubation programs should be based on an The mission of the ECAbit network is to strengthen the incentive scheme favouring market orientation by at the competitiveness of Eastern European and Central Asian same time avoiding crowding-out and moving upmarket economies by fostering innovation and entrepreneurship effects. Outsourcing public incubation support services for through effective and sustainable business incubation. In administration by private organizations should be consid- so doing, ECAbit is developing a sustainable platform for ered. contacts, knowledge generation and exchange, and col- laboration of business incubation professionals as well as 2. infoDev in ECA business incubator clients in the ECA region and worldwide. infoDev has a long history of activities in ECA, focusing Key activities include capacity building for incubation ex- on analytical work and knowledge generation in support perts and clients, and international knowledge exchange of policy-making and international networking, especial- and co-operation. Working groups aim at increasing capa- ly in the ICT sector, and through its support to business bilities in ICTs, agriculture and rural development, youth incubators and technology parks. Recent infoDev studies and incubation, technology transfer readiness, investment include: readiness, international trade and export readiness, and energy and the environment. • A case study of Russia in International Good Practice for Establishment of Sustainable IT Parks, Review of 3. Two examples of infoDev-funded success stories in ECA experiences in select countries (2008), Kharpcheloproduct Ltd. Kharkov/Ukraine (incubatee of • ICT, Innovation, and Economic Growth in Transition Kharkov Technologies Incubator, Ukraine) was founded Economies: A Multi-Country Study of Poland, Russia by Denis Soldatov, an aircraft technologies engineer and and the Baltic Countries, A study on the ICT dynamics holder of several patents, who started his honey and wax in Transition Countries, 2007, production with four employees and a focus on the local • Ukraine Country Study, A study on the funding chal- market in 2004. With infoDev’s support, the company max- lenges and opportunities facing Technology SMEs in imized ICT use for outreach and knowlewdge generation, developing countries, 2008. achieving an internationalization of the business. Since • Since 2006, infoDev has conducted the business in- 2007, sales have increased 40-fold and it now provides cubator impact assessment of incubators in the ECA 40 jobs. region. The Viasphere Technology Park in Yerevan/Armenia im- Since 2002, the infoDev incubator initiative has been plemented a systematic innovation management system, directly supporting the ICT and innovation development where innovation processes are designed holistically. In capabilities in the region. In 2005, infoDev initiated and the infoDev project framework, Viasphere implemented six supported the founding and development of the ECAbit Eu- high-tech pilot projects with extensive utilization of ICT. ropean and Central Asian Business Incubators and Technol- Three projects reached the commercialization stage, name- ogy parks network (www.ecabit.org), one of ï¬?ve infoDev- ly a digital density measuring system for high-precision supported regional incubator networks. measurement of the green density of porous material, a solar-powered water pumping station with an automated As of July 2009, ECAbit connects 42 full members from 19 sun tracking system, and a hail suppression system, which countries, including associations from Russia, Uzbekistan, operates on the base of suppressing acoustic waves gener- Kyrgyz Republic and the Ukraine, representing altogether ated by an acetylene explosion in a special chamber. and career advancements at universities among other Mr. Richard Johnson, Global Helix LLC and Arnold metrics for evaluation. & Porter LLP (Emeritus) and Mr. Stefan Schandera, InfoDev, World Bank showcased successful global The expert panel, including Prof. Riccardo Pietrabis- examples of university-industry linkages in the US, sa, NetVal; Mr. Peter Lindholm, Lindholm Consult; Italy and some ECA countries. The US National labs Reforming Innovation Systems: Moving Beyond Lectures & Labs • 27 Source: Riccardo Pietrabissa, NetVal, KEF VIII, Plenary VIII. have experienced a major shift toward commercializa- policies have played. It is important that risk tak- tion in last 10 years. There has been wide use of co- ing is viewed as being positive and failure is toler- operative R&D agreements and collaborations with ated in order to encourage greater innovative activity. industry leading to technology based development at Immigration has been an important source of skilled various levels. They have also provided technical as- talent. In the last 25 years, as much as 35-40% of sistance and brokerage services for SMEs, leveraging start-ups and entrepreneurial activity in the US came government-funded research equipment and tools from individuals not born in the United States. The to provide shared access and services to the industry. institutional and regulatory environment (Figure 17) Experience in ECA suggests that incubators in the that includes: tax regulations, labor mobility; com- region do not follow the “typicalâ€? linear model. The petition, education and innovation policies all con- possible reasons for these differences are likely to be tribute to an attractive entrepreneurial and attractive discussed in detail in the next forum. environment. It is the effective participation of these various actors that enables and sustains commercial- These successful cases highlighted the critical role ization of research. that the supportive entrepreneurial climate and Concluding Remarks The presentations and discussions by practitioners, presented the prior experience of countries that were academics, and policymakers at the KEF VIII result- able to embark on dynamic post-crisis growth by en- ed in a rich discussion and a renewed commitment of gaging in aggressive reform and re-commitment to the ECA client countries to continue to address the this new growth agenda. The discussion at the Fon- challenges of creating a knowledge-based economy, tainebleau Forum generated the following conclu- even at the time of great financial turmoil. Keeping sions: the financial crisis in mind, the Fontainebleau Forum 28 • Knowledge Economy Forum VIII 1. KEF VIII participants discussed several policy first evaluate their tertiary educational capac- options for a difficult yet necessary reform of ity and the domestic demand for training and Research and Development Institutes, which learning activities, to evaluate if specialized would allow the ECA R&D sector to elimi- vocational training would be more appropri- nate inefficiencies, yet preserve institutional ate, given the national context. knowledge of the R&D community. After in- tensive discussions, the participants conclud- 3. Lastly, the ECA economies are urged to con- ed that no single reform strategy from among tinue the implementation of the national the seven discussed was a perfect match in MSTQ system, and to foster competition all instances. Although the GOCO option based on quality not on price. A dynamic was conceptually the most attractive, partici- relationship is needed between the national pants acknowledged that due to the nature of quality infrastructure and the legal system, the region’s human capacity it would be dif- as well as a promotion of mutual recognition ficult to implement, since challenges remain and trade facilitation. in finding skilled managers and contracting reputable companies. In closing, the Fontainebleau Forum offered a unique opportunity to continue to develop cross-country 2. Establishing World Class Universities cer- networks of professionals in the area of innovation as tainly has its advantages, but it also comes a resource base to expedite the transfer of knowledge at a heavy price. Although some countries in on successes and failures that could prove valuable ECA have committed to establishing World for policy makers across the entire ECA region. We Class Universities, this is a task that may not eagerly look forward to continuing this tradition of always be optimal given the resource-heavy networking and exchanges on knowledge economy commitment such aspirations require. Prior issues at the Ninth Knowledge Economy Forum to to such commitment, the national education be held in Berlin, Germany in May of 2010. demands have to be assessed. Nations must Reforming Innovation Systems: Moving Beyond Lectures & Labs • 29 References Guasch, J.Luis. Racine, Jean-Louis. Sanchez, Salmi, Jamil. 2009. Executive Summary: Challenges Isabel. Diop, Makhtar. 2007. Quality Systems and of Establishing World Class Universities. The World Standards for a Competitive Edge. The World Bank. Bank. Kim, Gwang-Jo. Knowledge Economy Forum Salmi, Jamil. Knowledge Economy Forum VIII VIII presentation. Plenary II. “Higher Education presentation. Plenary IV. “The Challenge of and National Innovation in Korea.â€? April 29, 2009. Establishing World-Class Universities.â€? April 30, Fontainebleau, France. www.worldbank.org/eca/ke 2009. Fontainebleau, France. www.worldbank.org/ eca/ke Lanvin, Bruno. Knowledge Economy Forum VIII presentation. Plenary VI. “Skills and Innovation: Schandera, Stefan. Knowledge Economy Forum Roadblock or Opportunity for Europe?â€? April 30, VIII presentation. Plenary VIII. “Incubating the 2009. Fontainebleau, France. www.worldbank.org/ Incubators: Lessons Learned from Eastern Europe eca/ke and Central Asia.â€? May 1, 2009. Fontainebleau, France. www.worldbank.org/eca/ke Pietrabissa, Riccardo. Knowledge Economy Forum VIII presentation. Plenary VIII. “From Research to Van der Loo, Hans. Knowledge Economy Forum Markets.â€? May 1, 2009. Fontainebleau, France. www. VIII presentation. Plenary VI. “A View from the worldbank.org/eca/ke Private Sector on Talent and Lessons from the JET Net Program in Netherlands.â€? April 30, 2009. Pilat, Dirk. Knowledge Economy Forum VIII Fontainebleau, France. www.worldbank.org/eca/ke presentation. Plenary I. “Global Dynamics in Science, Technology and Innovation in 2009: What should World Bank. Global Outlook Report, 2009-2010. be expected?â€?April 29, 2009. Fontainebleau, France. Europe and Central Asia Regional Summary. http:// www.worldbank.org/eca/ke go.worldbank.org/CSHRUYEC90 Racine, Jean-Louis. Goldberg, Itzhak. Goddard, John Gabriel. Kuriakose, Smita. Kapil, Natasha. 2009. Europe and Central Asia Knowledge Economy Study Part III (ECA KE III): Restructuring of Research and Development Institutes in Europe and Central Asia. The World Bank. Richier, Andre. Knowledge Economy Forum VIII presentation. Plenary VI. “A View from the Government: the Human factor in EU’s Lisbon Agenda.â€? April 30, 2009. Fontainebleau, France. www.worldbank.org/eca/ke Rouvinen, Petri. Knowledge Economy Forum VIII presentation. Plenary II. “Finnish Experience at the Time of Crisis.â€? April 29, 2009. Fontainebleau, France. www.worldbank.org/eca/ke 30 • Knowledge Economy Forum VIII Annex : KEF VIII Agenda TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 2009 Venue: World Bank Office, Paris 15:00 - 16:00 Press Conference Bruno Lanvin, Executive Director, INSEAD, eLab Responsiveness of Academic Institutions to Needs of Private Sector Leaders in Challenging Times Shigeo Katsu, Vice President, Europe and Central Asia Region, World Bank On Importance of Public Innovation System Reforms for Economic Effectiveness Moderated by Fernando Montes-Negret, Director, ECSPF, World Bank WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 2009 Venue: Amphi A, INSEAD, Fontainebleau THEME 1: TO R&D OR NOT TO R&D? 09:00 - 09:30 Registration 09:30 - 10:00 Opening Ceremony: Keynote Welcome Remarks 09:30 - 09:45 Shigeo Katsu, Vice President, Europe and Central Asia Region World Bank On Importance of Public Innovation System Reforms for Economic Effectiveness 09:45 - 10:00 Soumitra Dutta, Dean of External Affairs, INSEAD Welcoming remarks form Dean of INSEAD and forecast from the Global Innovation Index 10:00 - 12:00 Plenary I: Keeping Lisbon on the Agenda in Hard Times 10:30 - 10:50 Anneli Pauli, Deputy Director-General, DG Research, European Commission Implications for R&D and Innovation Policy in the EU: How Should Europe React? 10:50 - 11:10 Dirk Pilat, Head, Structural Policy Division, Direct. for Science, Technology & Industry, OECD Global Dynamics in Science, Technology and Innovation in 2009: What Should Be Expected? 11:10 - 11:30 TBD Economic Prospects for Europe and Central Asia 11:30 - 12:00 Q & A Moderated by Fernando Montes-Negret, Director, ECSPF, World Bank 12:00 - 13:00 Lunch Venue: INSEAD Restaurant, Fontainebleau 13:00 - 13:30 Keynote Speaker Pierre Laffitte, Founder Sophia Antipolis On Establishment of Sophia Antipolis and Relevance for the Mediterranean Region 13:30 - 15:00 Plenary II: Is Innovation & Technology Policy Still a Priority? 13:30 - 13:45 Paulo Guilherme Correa, Senior Economist, ECSPF, World Bank Reaching and Sustaining Higher Rates of Economic Growth in Croatia: The Role of Innovation Policy 13:45 - 14:00 Erol Taymaz, Department of Economics, Middle East Technical University Does Innovation and Technology Policy Pay-off? Evidence from Turkey 14:00 - 14:15 Gwang-Jo Kim, Director, UNESCO Bangkok and the Asia Pacific Region Higher Education and National Innovation in Korea 14:15 - 14:30 Petri Rouvinen, Research Director, Research Institute of Finnish Economy Finnish Experience at the Time of Crisis 14:30 - 15:00 Q & A Moderated by Lalit Raina, Sector Manager, ECSPF, World Bank 15:00 - 15:30 Coffee Break Venue: INSEAD, Fontainebleau 15:30 - 17:00 Plenary III: R&D Governance and Funding Reform Reforming Innovation Systems: Moving Beyond Lectures & Labs • 31 WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 2009 (Continued) Venue: Amphi A, INSEAD, Fontainebleau 15:30 - 15:45 Jean-Louis Racine, Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Specialist, ECSPF, World Bank ECA KE III 2009 Regional Study on “Restructuring R&D Institutes in ECAâ€? 15:45 - 16:00 Erik Arnold, Director, Technopolis The Role of R&D Institutes in Western Europe 16:00 - 16:15 Slavo Radosevic, Professor Industry and Innovation Studies, Centre for the Study of Economic and Social Change in Europe, University College London Active and Gradualist Model for Supporting of R&D Institutes in ECA 16:15 - 17:00 Q & A Moderated by Itzhak Goldberg, Advisor, Policy and Strategy, World Bank 19:30 - 21:30 Welcome Dinner Venue: Marquee Tent, Fontainebleau THURSDAY, APRIL 30, 2009 Venue: Amphi A, INSEAD, Fontainebleau THEME 2: FROM IVORY TOWERS TO WORLD CLASS HEIS 9:00 - 9:30 Keynote Speaker Claude Janssen, Co-Founder and Honorary Chairman, INSEAD INSEAD as a Shining Example of a World Class University 09:30 - 11:00 Plenary IV: Creating World Class Universities 09:30 - 9:50 Jamil Salmi, Tertiary Education Coordinator, HD Network The Challenge of Establishing World-Class Universities 09:50 - 10:10 Richard Miller, President, Olin College of Engineering, Massachusetts, USA Creating a World-Class Engineering School from Scratch: Lessons of Experience 10:10 - 10:30 Simon Donoghue, Head of the Strategy Project Group, University of Leeds, UK Transforming the University of Leeds into a World-Class University 10:30 - 11:00 Q & A Moderated by Alberto Rodriguez, Country Sector Coordinator, Human Development, Central Europe and the Baltic Countries 11:00 - 11:30 Coffee Break 11:30 - 13:00 Plenary V: Changing Incentives and Institutions: One HEI at a Time 11:30 - 11:50 Minh-Ha Pham-Delegue, ParisTech Paris Institute of Technology: Towards International Visibility 11:50 - 12:10 Melita KovaÄ?ević, Vice-Rector for Science and Technology, University of Zagreb, PRIUM University Reform Within Global Changes: Importance of Fostering Research-Innovation Links 12:10 - 12:30 Poh-Kam Wong, Professor, National University of Singapore Lessons from National University of Singapore (NUS) and other East Asian universities 12:30 - 13:00 Q & A Moderated by Jamil Salmi, Tertiary Education Coordinator, HD Network 13:00 - 14:00 Lunch Venue: INSEAD Restaurant, Fontainebleau THEME 3: THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF KNOWLEDGE 14:00 - 14:30 Keynote Speaker Vahé Torossian, President of Central and Eastern Europe, Microsoft Incubating and Promoting Innovation Across Central and Eastern Europe: From Education to Business 14:30 - 16:00 Plenary VI: Skills for Innovation: How to Identify, Produce & Keep Them 14:30 - 14:50 Bruno Lanvin, Executive Director, INSEAD, eLab Skills and Innovation: Roadblock or Opportunity for Europe? 14:50 - 15:10 Hans van der Loo, Head European Union Liaison, Shell International and ERT Sherpa of Royal Dutch Shell CEO A View From the Private Sector on Talent and Lessons from the JET NET Program in the Netherlands 32 • Knowledge Economy Forum VIII THURSDAY, APRIL 30, 2009 (Continued) Venue: Amphi A, INSEAD, Fontainebleau 15:10 - 15:30 André Richier, Principal Administrator, Innovation Policy Directorate, European Commission A View From Government: The Human Factor in EU’s Lisbon Strategy 15:30 - 16:00 Q & A Moderated by Richard L. Hudson, CEO & Editor, Science, Business Publishing Ltd. 16:00 - 18:00 Coffee Break & Parallel Roundtables on Restructuring of RDIs, HEIs Venue: CEDEP Bar Area, Fontainebleau Key Moderators for 10 Roundtables and Country Experts: Omer Anlagan, Vice President, TUBITAK, Republic of Turkey Won-Gyu Hwang, Professor, Kangung National University, South Korea Gilbert Nicolaon, Former Direcor, Anvar, France Peter Venturini, Assistant Chairman of the Managing Board, Helios, Slovenia Marat R. Safioullin, Minister, Ministry of Economy, Republic of Tatarstan, Russia Irina Astrakhan, Lead Private Sector Specialist, ECSPF, World Bank Paulo Guilherme Correa, Senior Economist, ECSPF, World Bank John Gabriel Goddard, Economist, ECSPF, World Bank Itzhak Goldberg, Advisor, Policy and Strategy, ECSPF, World Bank Natasha Kapil, Innovation Specialist, ECSPF, World Bank Smita Kuriakose, Consultant, ECSPF, World Bank Jean-Louis Racine, Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Specialist, ECSPF, World Bank Alberto Rodriguez, Country Sector Coordinator, Human Development, Central Europe and the Baltic Countries Jamil Salmi, Tertiary Education Coordinator, HD Network 19:00 - 19:30 Cocktail 19:30 – 21:30 BBQ Dinner Venue: CEDEP Restaurant, Fontainebleau FRIDAY, MAY 1, 2009 Venue: Amphi A, INSEAD, Fontainebleau THEME 4: FROM LABS TO BAZAARS 09:00 - 10:15 Plenary VII: Quality Upgrading 09:00 - 09:20 Jean-Louis Racine, Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Specialist, ECSPF, World Bank Assessment of ECA’s Quality Infrastructure: Results of a Regional Study 09:20 - 09:35 Huseyin Ugur, Consultant, ECSPF, World Bank Approaches to Developing and Reforming the National Quality Infrastructure in ECA Q & A 09:35 - 09:50 Sylvie K. Bossoutrot, Senior Operations Officer, ECSPF, World Bank Discussant 09:50 - 10:15 Q & A Moderated by John Gabriel Goddard, Economist, ECSPF, World Bank 10:15 - 10:45 Coffee Break 10:45 - 12:15 Plenary VIII: Accelerating the Commercialization of Publicly-Funded R&D 10:45 - 11:00 Riccardo Pietrabissa, President, NetVal From Research to Markets 11:00 - 11:15 Mladen Zinic, former Director of Rudjer Boskovic Institute, Rudjer Innovations Lessons From the Experience of Rudjer Innovations 11:15 - 11:30 Stefan Schandera, InfoDev, World Bank Incubating the Incubators: Lessons Learned from Eastern Europe and Central Asia. 11:30 - 11:45 Richard Johnson, CEO, Global Helix LLC and Senior Counsel and Senior Partner (Emeritus), Arnold & Porter LLP Accelerating Commercialization Through Triple Helix Collaborations: An American Perspective 11:45 - 12:15 Q & A Moderated by Peter Lindholm, Lindholm-Consult 12:15 - 12:45 Closing Remarks Fernando Montes-Negret, Director, ECSPF, World Bank 12:45 - 14:15 Lunch Venue: INSEAD Restaurant, Fontainebleau 14:30 - 16:00 Tour of Chateau de Fontainebleau — All participants will be invited for this optional sign-up Reforming Innovation Systems: Moving Beyond Lectures & Labs • 33 Annex ï™…: KEF VIII Participants — Country Delegations ALBANIA BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA Ms. Petya Georgieva Senior Expert, Budget Directorate Ms. Ljiljana Milicevic Ministry of Finance Mrs. Arjana Cela p.georgieva@minfin.bg Director of Budget Policy and Analysis Advisor to the Chairman of BiH Council of Ministers +359 2 9859 2152 Ministry of Finance acela@minfin.gov.al BiH Council of Ministers, Office of the Chairman Ms. Sylvia Stoynova +355 42 269 644 Operations Analyst ljmilicevic@savjetministara.gov.ba +387 33 269 570; 387 65 522 665 World Bank-Bulgaria Mrs. Matilda Perllaku sstoynova@worldbank.org Higher Education Curriculum Specialist +359 2 9697 220 Ministry of Education and Science Ms. Biljana Camur collakumatilda@yahoo.fr Assistant Minister for Science and Culture BiH Ministry of Civil Affairs CROATIA +355 42 227975 biljana.camur@mcp.gov.ba +387 492 552 Mr. Zdravko Lenac ARMENIA Vice Rector Mr. Mirsad Colic University of Rijeka Mr. Vahe Danielyan pro3@uniri.hr Advisor to the Minister Deputy Minister FBiH Ministry of Finance +385 51 406 510 Ministry of Economy mirsad.colic@fmf.gov.ba vdanielyan@mineconomy.am +387 203 147 Mr. Dragan Soljan +374 91 260096 (cellular) PMU Director BELARUS Ministry of Science, Education & Sport Mr. Aram Arakelyan Dragan.soljan@mzos.hr Professor, Head +385 1 2352 662 Yerevan State University Mr. Valery Tsepkalo martig@arminco.com Director State Enterprise “Administration of High Mr. Vladimir Koroman +374 91 436403 (cellular) Director General Technologies Parkâ€? director@park.by Brodarski Institute Mr. Bagrat Yengibaryan vladimir.koroman@hrbi.hr Director 218-19-38, 218-19-08 +385 1 6504 100 Enterprise Incubator Foundation info@eif.am Mr. Aleksandr Zaborovski Assistant to Chairman Mr. Dalibor Marijanovic +374 91 406736 (cellular) CEO National Academy of Science zaborovski@gmail.com Business Innovation Center of Croatia Mr. Karen Grigorian dalibor.marijanovic@bicro.hr Economist 375172841158 +385 2352 601 World Bank-Armenia kgrigorian@worldbank.org BULGARIA Mr. Domagoj Oreb +374 91 404434 (cellular) CEO Ms. Anna Yaneva Rudjer Innovations Ltd AZERBAIJAN Deputy Minister of Economy and Energy domagoj.oreb@r-i.hr Ministry of Economy and Energy +385 1 2347 841 Mr. Elvin Rustamov a.yaneva@mee.government.bg Director of Education Sector Reform Project +359 2 940 74 26 Mr. Srdjan Novak Coordination Unit Head Ministry of Education Mr. Eli Anavi Technology Transfer Office, University of erustamov@ultel.net Director, Enterprise Policy Directorate Zagreb +99455 3224848 (cellular) Ministry of Economy and Energy snovak@unizg.hr e.anavi@mee.government.bg +385 1 4698 168 Ms. Saida Bagirli +359 2 940 75 81 Senior Operations Officer Ms. Alessia Pozzi World Bank-Azerbaijan Mr. Todor Yalamov Program Manager sbagirli@worldbank.org Coordinator Unity Through Knowledge Fund 99412 492 19 41, 99450 220 95 61 (cell) ARC Fund alessia.pozzi@ukf.hr todor.yalamov@online.bg +385 1 2352 685 +359 2 971 3000 34 • Knowledge Economy Forum VIII Ms. Ljiljana Tarade Mr. Lilian Bostan KOSOVO Operations Analyst Director General — Directorate Quality World Bank-Croatia Infrastructure ltarade@worldbank.org H.E. Enver Hoxhaj Ministry of Economy and Trade +385 1 2357 272 Minister of Education, Science and lilian.bostan@mec.gov.md Technology +37322233140 FYR MACEDONIA Ministry of Education, Science and Technology Mr. Iurie Muntean valbona.dermaku@ks-gov.net Deputy Minister Mr. Jordan Trajkovski +377 44 160 014 Ministry of Economy and Trade Head of Unit for Economic Policies General Secretariat of the Government of the iurie.muntean@mec.gov.md Mr. Abdulla Alija +373250760 Republic of Macedonia Minister of Education, Science and jordan.trajkovski@gs.gov.mk Technology Mrs. Viorelia Moldovan-Batrinac +389 2 3221 524; +389 75 982 056 Ministry of Education, Science and Advisor to the President of the Republic Technology on Education, Science, Research and Ms. Snezhana Delevska abdulla.alija@ks-gov.net Innovation Deputy Head 377 44 138 304 President’s Office Macroeconomic Policy Department, Ministry of Finance v.moldovan@prm.md KYRGYZ REP. +37322504237 snezhana.delevska@finance.gov.mk +38923119128 Mr. Aziz Aaliev Mr. Gheorghe Arpentin Ms. Gordana Popovik-Friedman State Secretary General Director Business Environment Specialist, CO Skopje Ministry of Economic Development and I.M. laco Alfactec SRL World Bank-Macedonia Trade gheorghe_arpentin@company.tmg.md gpopovik@worldbank.org AzizAliev@yandex.ru +37322241507 +38923117159 +996 312 621983 MONTENEGRO GEORGIA Mr. Boris Kubayev Deputy Minister Mr. Slobodan Milatovic Ministry of Education and Science Financial and Administration Affairs Advisor Ms. Lali Gogoberidze j.akylbek@mail.ru Montenegrin Union of Employers Head +996 312 661746 upcg@t-com.me Economic Analysis and Policy Department, Ministry of Economic Development +38220209250 LATVIA lalig@economy.ge, lgogoberidze@yahoo.com +995 32 99 11 14 POLAND Mr. Edmunds Beļskis Ms. Lela Katsadze Director Mr. Piotr Grabiec Senior Specialist Ministry of Economics of the Republic of Deputy Director Academic Education and Science Latvia Institute of Electron Technology Development, Ministry of Education and Edmunds.Belskis@em.gov.lv grabiec@ite.waw.pl Science 37167013113 48 601 91 88 11 lelakatsadze@gmail.com, lkatsadze@mes.gov. ge LITHUANIA Mr. Krzysztof Gulda +995 99 247107, +995 77 172 227 Director Mr. Juozas Rimantas Lazutka Strategy Department, Ministry of Science and KAZAKHSTAN Vice Rector Higher Education Vilnius University Mr. Askar Zhussupbekov juozas.lazutka@gf.vu.lt ROMANIA Head of the Department 370 5 268 70 17 Eurasian University in Astana Ms. Marielissa Voicu MOLDOVA Director Mr. Erkin Ongarbaev Ministry of Communications and Chair of Science Committee Mr. Marian Mamei Information Society Ministry of Education Deputy Head of Investment Policies and diana.voicu@mcsi.ro Public Property management Unit 40317104020 Mr. Asan Jumabekov Ministry of Economy and Trade Vice President marian.mamei@mec.gov.md Mr. Mihai Popescu National Center for Scientific and Technical +37322250654 General Manager Information Software Development & Consulting SRL mihai.popescu@sdc.ro 40.744568014 Reforming Innovation Systems: Moving Beyond Lectures & Labs • 35 Annex ï™…: KEF VIII Participants — Country Delegations (CONTINUED) Ms. Dorothea Vanau Ms. Taliya Minullina TURKEY Communication Officer Leading Adviser Ministry of Communications and Ministry of Economy of the Republic Mr. Ahmet Mete Cakmakci Information Society of Tatarstan, Economic & Social Deputy Secretary General Dorothea.vanau@mcsi.ro Development Strategy Department Technology Development Foundation of 40317 104021 Turkey Mr. Ainur Aideldinov mcakmakci@ttgv.org.tr Ms. Arabela Aprahamian Director +90 312 265 0272 Sr. Operations Officer Venture Foundation of Tatarstan republic The World Bank-Romania reception@ivfrt.ru Mr. Mehmet Tuncay Birand aaprahamian@worldbank.org 7-843-5704017 Vice President 40744560718 Middle East Technical University Mr. Roman Semenikhin mtbirand@metu.edu.tr RUSSIA Advisor +90 312 210 2108 Venture Foundation of Tatarstan republic Ms. Tatjana Timofeeva roman@ivfrt.ru Mr. Suleyman Alata Head of Strategic and Innovation Department 7-843-5704017 Planning Expert Committee for Economic Development, State Planning Organization Industrial Policy and Trade of St. Petersburg SERBIA alata@dpt.gov.tr t.timofeeva@cedipt.spb.ru +90 312 294 6405 7-812-576-09-70 Mr. Andrej Popovic PSD Specialist Mr. Kamil Ayanoglu Mr. Marat Rashytovich Safiullin World Bank-Serbia Head of Department Minister apopovic@worldbank.org State Planning Organization Ministry of Economy of Tatarstan +381 11 30 23 726 ayanoglu@dpt.gov.tr 7-8432-64-47-23 +90 312 294 6409 Mr. Milos Nedeljkovic Mr. Alexey Prazdnichnykh State Secretary Mr. Huseyin Guler Pricipal Ministry of Science and Technological EU Framework Programmes National Bauman Innovation Development Coordinator aprazdn@compet.ru milos.nedeljkovic@nauka.gov.rs TUBITAK 7-495-981-46-37 +381 11 363 17 55 huseyin.guler@tubitak.gov.tr +90 312 468 5300/3834 Mr. Maxim Balanev Mr. Radosav Cerovic Executive Director Assistant Minister Mr. Okan Kara St. Petersburg Foundation for SME Devt Ministry of Science and Technological EU Framework Programmes National Maxim.balanev@fbd.spb.ru Development Coordinator 7-812-325-84-16 radosav.cerovic@nauka.gov.rs TUBITAK +381 11 6340 230 okan.kara@tubitak.gov.tr Mr. Marina Sidorova +90 312 468 5300/1241 Advisor TAJIKISTAN St. Petersburg Foundation for SME TURKMENISTAN Development Mr. Bakhtier Badargaevich Nazirmadov Head of the Investment Department Mr. Abdyrakhman Gurtgeldyevich Ovezov Mr. Sergey Leschenko State Committee on Investments and State Deputy Head Head of Corporate Governance Unit Property Management IT Department, Ministry of Economy and Ministry of Economic Development of Russia Development of Turkmenistan LeshchenkoSN@economy.gov.ru Mr. Firdavs Muqadasovich Hayokhojaev Chief specialist of the Economic reforms and UKRAINE Ms. Ljudmila Poznanskaya Investment Sr. Operations Officer Department of Executive Office of the Ms. Olena Kucherenko World Bank-Russia President of the Republic of Tajikistan Head of the Department for Cooperation with International Organizations Mr. Ilnur Diyarov Ministry of Economy of Ukraine Minister’s Assistant kucherenko@mfert.gov.ua Ministry of Economy of the Republic of 38044 2724489 Tatarstan 36 • Knowledge Economy Forum VIII Ms. Liudmyla Musina Ms. Smita Kuriakose Ms. Sylvia Stoynova Head of Advisory Division Consultant Operations Analyst Ministry of Economy of Ukraine The World Bank Group The World Bank Group musina@me.gov.ua skuriakose@worldbank.org sstoynova@worldbank.org 38044 2725118 202-458-9003 5245+220 UNITED STATES Mr. Fernando Montes-Negret Ms. Ljiljana Tarade Sector Director Operations Analyst Ms. Irina Astrakhan The World Bank Group The World Bank Group Lead Private Sector Development Specialist Fmontesnegret@worldbank.org ltarade@worldbank.org The World Bank Group 202-458-9524 5240+7272 iastrakhan@worldbank.org 202-458-8243 Mr. Andrej Popovic Ms. Alina Tourkova Private Sector Dev. Specialist Consultant Ms. Sylvie K. Bossoutrot The World Bank Group The World Bank Group Senior Operations Officer apopovic@worldbank.org atourkova@worldbank.org The World Bank Group 381-11-3023-726 202-473-6940 sbossoutrot@gmail.com 202-473-8569 Dr. Jean-Louis Racine Mr. Huseyin Ugur Private Sector Dev. Specialist Consultant Mr. Xiaonan Cao The World Bank Group The World Bank Group Lead Knowledge & Learning Officer jracine2@worldbank.org ugurh@superonline.com The World Bank Group 202-360-2721 90-532-356-20-14 xcao@worldbank.org 202-473-8917 Mr. Lalit Raina Mr. Chris Uregian Sector Manager Consultant Dr. Paulo Guilherme Correa The World Bank Group The World Bank Group Senior Economist lraina@worldbank.org curegian@worldbank.org The World Bank Group 202-458-2900 609-933-7171 pcorrea@worldbank.org 202-473-1574 Dr. Alberto Rodriguez UZBEKISTAN Country Sector Coordinator, Lead Education Mr. Andrea Mario Dall’Olio Specialist Mr. Rustam Mannapovich Saidov Country Sector Coordinator The World Bank Group Head of Department of International S&T The World Bank Group arodriguez@worldbank.org Cooperation adallolio@worldbank.org 202-458-8234 Committee for Coordination of Science 7-727-298-0580 and Technology Development under the Ms. Prathima Rodriguez Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Dr. Gabriel Goddard Consultant Uzbekistan Economist The World Bank Group saidov_r@yahoo.com The World Bank Group prodrigues@worldbank.org 998-71-233-24-53, 998-90-186-59-64 jgoddard@worldbank.org 202-473-2547 202-458-8623 Mr. Feruz Kasimovich Rahmatov Mr. Jamil Salmi Deputy Department Head of Localization Dr. Itzhak Goldberg Lead Education Specialist Programs Development and Monitoring Adviser, Policy and Strategy The World Bank Group Department The World Bank Group jsalmi@worldbank.org Ministry of Economy of Uzbekistan igoldberg@worldbank.org 202-473-3445 frahmatov@mineconomy.uz 202-473-6289 998-97-771-74-22, 998-71-232-63-49 Mr. Stefan Schandera Ms. Natasha Kapil Consultant Private Sector Dev. Specialist The World Bank Group The World Bank Group s.schandera@schandera.de nkapil@worldbank.org 49-1577-710-4800 202-458-9587 Ms. Tatiana Segal Mr. Shigeo Katsu Operations Analyst Vice President, ECA The World Bank Group The World Bank Group tsegal@worldbank.org skatsu@worldbank.org 202-473-2541 202-458-8154 Reforming Innovation Systems: Moving Beyond Lectures & Labs • 37 Annex : KEF VIII Speakers & Moderators Dr. Omer Anlagan Dr. Gwang-Jo Kim Mr. Dirk Pilat Vice President Director for East Asia Pacific Head, Structural Policy Division, Directorate Tubitak UNESCO for Science, Technology, and Industry omer.anlagan@tubitak.gov.tr gj.kim@unesco.org OECD 312-467-8280 66-85-912-5211 Dirk.PILAT@oecd.org Mr. Erik Arnold Prof. Melita Kovacevic Prof. Slavo Radosevic Director Vice-Rector for Science and Technology Professor of Industry and Innovation Studies Technopolis University of Zagreb Centre for the Study of Economic and Social erik.arnold@technopolis-group.com melita.kovacevic@unizg.hr Change in Europe, University College of London Mr. Peter Berkowitz Sen. Pierre Lafitte s.radosevic@clara.co.uk Head of Unit, Policy Conception – DG Honorary Senator European Commission Sophia Antipolis Mr. Andre Richier Gabriella.FESUS@ec.europa.eu Soulier@sophia-antipolis.org Principal Administrator European Commission Mr. Simon Donoghue Mr. Bruno Lanvin andre.richier@ec.europa.eu Head of Strategy Project Group Executive Director 32-2-296-91-10 University of Leeds eLab, INSEAD s.donoghue@adm.leeds.ac.uk Bruno.LANVIN@insead.edu Mr. Petri Rouvinen 44-113-343 4844 33-1-60-71-26-42 Research Director ETLA, The Research Institue of the Finnish Prof. Soumitra Dutta Mr. Peter Lindholm Economy Dean of External Affairs Consultant petri.rouvinen@etla.fi INSEAD Lindhold Consulting 3585 0367 3474 virginie.bongeot-minet@insead.edu, peter.lindholm@wanadoo.fr Soumitra.DUTTA@insead.edu 00336-143-150-13 Dr. Erol Taymaz 33 1 64 22 06 18 Professor, Department of Economics Mr. Richard Miller Middle East Technical University Mr. Richard L. Hudson President etaymaz@metu.edu.tr CEO & Editor Olin College of Engineering Science, Business, Publishing Ltd. Richard.Miller@olin.edu Mr. Vahe Torossian richard.hudson@sciencebusiness.net President of Central & Eastern Europe Dr. Gilbert Nicolaon Microsoft Prof. Won-Gyu Hwang Former Head vahetor@microsoft.com Professor Anvar Kangung National University win.tech@club-internet.fr Mr. Hans van der Loo solonga21@gmail.edu Head EU Liaison 82-16-704-1101 Dr. Anneli Pauli Shell International Deputy Director General of DG Research Hans.vanderLoo@shell.com Mr. Claude L. Janssen European Commission Co-Founder and Honorary Chairman of Anna-Maija.Osola@ec.europa.eu Prof. Peter Venturini INSEAD 32-2 -295 40 -55 R&D Director INSEAD Helios claudejanssen@wanadoo.fr Dr. Min-Ha Pham-Delegue peter.venturini@helios.si Head of International Relations, ParisTech Mr. Richard Johnson ParisTech Dr. Poh Kam Wong CEO, Global Helix LLC and Senior Counsel minh-ha.pham-delegue@paristech.org Professor and Senior Partner (Emeritus), Arnold & National University of Singapore Porter LLP Prof. Riccardo Pietrabissa PohKam@nus.edu.sg Global Helix LLC President 65 6516 6323 Richard.Johnson@APORTER.com NetVal 202-942-5550 riccardo.pietrabissa@polimi.it 38 • Knowledge Economy Forum VIII Notes Reforming Innovation Systems: Moving Beyond Lectures & Labs • 39