69950 Knowledge Economy Forum VII Technology Absorption by Innovative SMEs Ancona, Italy. June 17-19, 2008. 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, Washingon, D.C. 2009 The World Bank 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433, USA Telephone: 1.202.473.1000 Facsimile : 1.202.477.6391 Email: feedback@worldbank.org http://www.worldbank.org Publisher: UNIVERSITà POLITECNICA DELLE MARCHE Piazza Roma, 22 60100 Ancona (Italy) tel. +39 071 22021 www.univpm.it info@univpm.it 4 Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...........................................................................................................................5 PREFACE .....................................................................................................................................................7 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................9 1. Globalization and the Channels of Technology Absorption ..............................................................9 2. The Italian Experience with SME Manufacturing Cluster Development .......................................16 3. Enabling Conditions and Policies for Cluster Development and Revitalization .............................21 CONCLUDING REMARKS ......................................................................................................................31 ANNEX 1: AGENDA .................................................................................................................................33 ANNEX 2: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS .......................................................................................................36 ANNEX 3: LIST OF SPEAKERS ..............................................................................................................42 Knowledge Economy Forum VII 5 Acknowledgements These proceedings highlight the key findings and public policy lessons that emerged from the Knowledge Economy Forum VII (KEF VII) on Technology Absorption by Innovative Small and Medium Enterprises, held in Ancona, Italy on June 17-19, 2008. This report was written by John Gabriel Goddard, Ganna Onysko, Alina Tourkova, and has benefited from extensive contributions made by session speakers and rapporteurs, including Fernando Montes-Negret, Natasha Kapil, Lalit Raina, Itzhak Goldberg, Jean- Louis Racine, and Tatiana Segal of the Private and Financial Sector Development unit (ECSPF) in the Europe and Central Asia region (ECA). The World Bank team is appreciative of the overwhelming hospitality of the Universitá Politecnica delle Marche under the outstanding leadership of Rector Marco Pacetti and of dedicated involvement of the Faculty of Economics, especially of Professor Alessandro Sterlacchini and Professor Luca Papi. The World Bank is extremely grateful to the Ancona Forum co-sponsors: Ministero degli Affari Esteri, Ministero Istruzione Università e Ricerca, and the community of the Marche region that came together to make this event a success, particularly to UniCredit Group, INDESIT Company, Scavolini, Cosmob and Meccano, Regione Marche, Provincia di Ancona, and Comune di Ancona. Finally, we extend a warm word of thanks to the student organizational team “Le Camicie Rosse� for facilitating logistics at the Ancona Forum. The organizers value the enthusiastic involvement of Bank of Italy and the academic circles that were represented by distinguished professors from Università Politecnica delle Marche, Università del Piemonte Orientale, Università di Bologna, Politecnica di Milano, Università degli Studi di Milano, Università degli Studi di Bari, Università degli Studi di Ferrara, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, Carnegie Mellon University, RMIT University of Australia, Lund University of Sweden, and University of Singapore. Among the leading private sector partners locally we extend special thanks to INDESIT Company’s Mr. Andrea Merloni, Deputy Chairman, Mrs. Neriman Ulsever, Human Resoufrces Director, Mr. Giuliano Calza, Human Resources Organizational Development, Mr. Federico Ziller, External Communications and Press Office Manager; Scavolini’s Vice Presidents Mr. Gianmarco Scavolini, Mrs. Emanuela Scavolini; Mr. Paolo Ratini, SPES, Mr. Alessandro Gnaccarini, Cosmob, and Mrs. Letizia Urbani, Meccano. Internationally, key contributions came from speakers at Bauman Innovation, Krauss Maffei, PAC Group, Technopolis Group, and WIPRO. The Forum benefited above all from the dialog on technology absorption in innovative small and medium enterprises made by delegates from the 22 countries in attendance, including: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, 6 Italy, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Tajikistan, Turkey, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. The success of this year’s event owes much to the constructive discussions between all the leading actors that play a role in supporting innovation in their respective countries and worldwide, and the World Bank is thankful for their openness, active participation and contributions. Knowledge Economy Forum VII 7 Preface Technology Absorption by Innovative Small and Medium Enterprises was the focal theme of the KEF VII held in Ancona, Italy on June 17-19, 2008. The Ancona Forum was the seventh in a series of flagship events organized by the Private and Financial Sector Development Department in the Europe and Central Asia Region of the World Bank (ECSPF). The 2008 Forum was organized to exchange experiences among global leaders, policymakers, academics and practitioners in ECA countries that can contribute to accelerating the transition to an increasingly knowledge-based economy. The first such Forum took place in 2002 in Paris and focused on the definition of national knowledge economy strategies and targeted both EU accession and EU candidate countries. The 2004 Forum, held in Budapest looked at the role of knowledge in enhancing countries’ competitiveness and included countries in the Balkans and Central Asia. The 2005 Forum, in Istanbul, engaged delegates in a dialogue on improving the business environment and using knowledge to stimulate private sector growth. The 2006 Prague Forum focused on innovation and technology absorption for economic growth. The 2007 Cambridge Forum highlighted the rapid development of innovative firms known as the “Cambridge Phenomenon� and discussed the role of government in supporting knowledge networks and technology acquisition. This seventh Forum in Ancona was co-hosted by the World Bank Vice-Presidency for the ECA region together with Universitá Politecnica delle Marche. This year’s Forum hosted representatives from 22 countries. A detailed list of participants, including representatives from key government ministries, industry, academia, think tanks, civil society and international development organizations, is provided at the end of this report in Annex 2. This Forum aimed to build on previous events, discussing new dimensions related to the role of government in supporting small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). To this end, the speakers included policymakers and SME representatives with diverse experiences in this area that can shed light on: the benefits of cooperation between larger firms and SMEs; patterns of interaction among SMEs that promote new product development, process and service innovation,the potential for government to facilitate such cooperation. In particular, the “Italian Industrial Districts� success story helps to illustrate the enabling factors for cluster development in traditional industries, the limits of this industrial growth process, and of associated industrial policy initiatives, and the options that exist to carry out a transition towards higher value-added products and services through quality upgrading, initiative design, new firm entry, and skills development. 8 The specific objectives of KEF VII were to: • Disseminate the results and implications of the Europe and Central Asia Knowledge Economy Study Part II (ECAKE II) on “Globalization and Technology Absorption in Europe and Central Asia: The Role of Trade, FDI, and Cross-border Knowledge Flows�1; • Examine the importance of public-private sector cooperation for the growth of the innovative SME sector, discuss how governments in ECA countries can learn from this experience and devise and implement stronger policies to support SMEs; • Look at positive experiences of innovation and enhanced competitiveness in traditional sectors; • Stimulate an exchange of experiences on these issues among ECA country representatives, in the public and private sectors, and the research community; as well as exchanges between the new EU member states and other ECA countries will be particularly encouraged, on issues related to the role of knowledge and networks, quality and standards certification, private sector role in technology transfer, innovation and productivity growth. These themes were reinforced by leading private sector partners, representatives from regional government, business associations, technology transfer agencies, relevant research community, academia and other important civil society organizations in Italy that work on themes related to this year’s event. The 3-day Forum was structured around plenary sessions, thematic expert panels, with relevant country case studies and site visits at INDESIT Company, Scavolini, and Cosmob. The report highlights the key messages from the various sessions listed in the Forum Agenda in Annex 1 that is included at the end to this report. For more detailed information, we encourage readers to access the presentations available through the Knowledge Economic Forum Series website at www.worldback.org/eca/ke We look forward to seeing you at the Eighth KEF to be held at INSEAD, France (Spring 2009). 1 This report is a follow-up to the study on Public Financial Support of Commercial Innovation (ECAKE I), which focused on the financing of innovation. The full document is available at: http://www-wds.worldbank. org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2008/06/25/000334955_20080625071640/Rendered/PDF/ 443850PUB0Tech101OFFICIAL0USE0ONLY1.pdf Knowledge Economy Forum VII 9 10 Introduction Improving the absorptive capability of countries – their ability to tap into the global technology pool – is an important mechanism for accelerating industrial development, raising productivity of workers, and raising economic growth. Trade flows, foreign direct investment (FDI), research and development (R&D), intellectual property rights (IPRs) (e.g. patents, licensing), and labor mobility and training are key elements for knowledge absorption. Yet the speed and success of this absorption process hinges crucially on having a favorable investment climate along with solid national education and innovation systems. A favorable environment for private sector development can be enhanced at the regional level, as in the case of the industrial districts in Italy, where enough of these enabling factors are present. These proceedings provide a précis of the main issues and conclusions presented at the Forum by an outstanding group of academics, practitioners, and policymakers.2 It also encapsulates the key results of the ECAKE II Report on the role of trade, FDI and IPRs in promoting economic growth. It reviews the Italian industrial cluster experience that occupied center-stage at the Forum and discusses the replicability of this success story in the context of ECA countries, and draws lessons for technology absorption by innovative small and medium enterprises. 1. Globalization and the Channels of Technology Absorption The presentations in the first plenary session by Andrew Burns, Giorgio Barba Navaretti, Alessandro Sterlacchini, and Salvatore Rossi dwelled on issues of technology diffusion in middle income countries (MICs) and globalization as a leading driver of this process in ECA countries. The debate highlighted the positive relationship between openness to foreign trade and investment and the process of technological absorption and diffusion. This relationship exists because of the competitive pressure that trade exerts on management and corporate governance, as well as due to the exposure and opportunities to leading global technology and management practices that such openness provides to domestic firms. Studies into the links between trade and technology adoption confirm the significant, positive impact of trade liberalization on measured productivity growth at the firm level. Direct entry by more efficient foreign firms into manufacturing, or the entry through their imports, discipline and incentivize domestic firms to improve their competitiveness, specifically by changing, and often revolutionizing, manufacturing processes and introducing more attractive products. Turning to FDI, case studies in Serbia showed that there seems to be a significant effect of foreign ownership on the productivity of wholly- or partially-owned foreign subsidiaries. In other words, firms with foreign ownership are 2 See program, list of participants and speakers in Annex 2 and 3. Knowledge Economy Forum VII 11 more productive and technologically-intensive than purely domestic firms (for details, see ECAKE II chapter 2). Professor Giorgio Barba Navaretti’s presentation discussed the direction of FDI and trade flows. It pointed out that those emerging countries that were characterized in the 1990s as having larger shares of inward FDI flows are now becoming outward investors. This implies that traditional technological flows, often referred to as North-South R&D spillovers in the literature (Coe, Helpman, Hoffmaister), are now operating alongside new flows that transmit knowledge among MICs. Furthermore, emerging market economies like China are observing a change in the composition of their exports, expanding their exports of capital and parts and component goods and simultaneously shrinking its share of primary, semi-finished, and consumption goods exported (see Chart 1). The share of domestic inputs into the production processes is also rising. Chart 1 Ratio of Final Exports to Imported Components Shifts in Composition of Exports China: using Primary goods Semi- nished goods Parts and components more domestic Ordinary machinery 100 Capital goods Consumption goods (in percent of total) inputs in O ce & communication apparatus 80 exports and Home electrical appliances 60 upgrading export Precision apparatus 40 sophistication (1995=100) 280 20 0 240 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 Sources: CEIC; UN Comtrade; Chinese authorities; and IMF staff estimates. 200 Sophistication Index for Overall Trade 9.7 160 9.6 120 9.5 9.4 80 9.3 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 Exports Imports 9.2 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 Sources: CEIC; UN Comtrade; Chinese authorities; and IMF staff estimates. Sources: UN Comtrade; and IMF staff estimates. Source: Giorgio Barba Navaretti, Ancona KEF VII, 2008 www.worldbank.org/eca/kef Within the ECA region, merchandise exports and imports as a share of GDP expanded from 15 percent in 1994 to nearly 25 percent in 2003, in tandem with the trade liberalization. In addition, services in telecommunications, transportation, energy, and banking have emerged as a dynamic whforce and their trade volume reached 5 percent of GDP. The expansion of trade in the ECA region took place in a period in which the productivity of local companies increased significantly, and these trends have been confirmed by empirical studies concluding that there is a correlation between increased import competition and firm productivity.3 3 For more details please see ECAKE II, which presents results of various studies, Earle and Estrin (2003) and 12 At a more general level, survey results of about 7000 ECA firms show that ECA firms that enter export markets are also prone to introduce significant technological upgrades. This was found to be true after controlling for foreign ownership, human capital, and environmental factors affecting export climate. In addition, studies have confirmed that vertical FDI promotes learning by local firms (for references see ECAKE II). More specifically, the establishment of joint ventures with multinational companies yields, on average, a 41 percent increase in absorption. The wave of globalization through which emerging market countries became more open to FDI and trade flows has contributed to more technological transfer and innovations in these countries. However, the growing speed of technological change implies that ECA countries have not been able to catch up with the technological levels of the industrialized countries. The result is that despite ECA region’s continued technological advancement, the region has remained at a distance from the global technological frontier, a situation related to the “Red Queen’s Hypothesis�—which is the idea that in an evolving system fostering development is needed just to stay in the same place. The technological gap between countries was addressed by Andrew Burns, who referred to the latest Global Economic Prospects report released by the World Bank. This suggests that the technological gap between rich and poor countries has narrowed in relative terms, but it remains large in absolute terms (see Chart 2). The technology gap between middle- and high-income countries appears to have narrowed over the past decade and evidence of catch-up is stronger in the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland, where the level of technological achievement increased by more than 70 percent during the 1990s. Index of technological achievement Chart 2 Technology Gap: 100 (high-income countries=100) Narrowing but still wide 75 50 25 0 High Income Upper Middle Income Lower Middle Income Low Income Sources: World Bank, Global Economic Prospects (2008) In addition, this presentation highlighted that the observed technological progress within Djankov and Hoekman (2000) amongst them, which suggest that trade liberalization in the 1990s had a positive impact on productivity – although many countries in ECA still have high average tariff and non-tariff barriers, which would need to be reduced to gain from international integration. Knowledge Economy Forum VII 13 developing countries reflects absorption of pre-existing technologies as opposed to at-the- frontier inventions (see Chart 3). Developing countries are scarcely active in the global technology frontier. Chart 3 Technological progress Result of technological absorbation Technological Technology progress is mainly about absorbing progress – result (high-income countries=100) 100 and adopting technologies developed elsewhere of technological Technological frontier absorption 80 Exposure to DIASPORA TRADE FDI & OTHER foreign NETWORKS 60 technology + GOVERNANCE AND THE BUSINESS CLIMATE 40 Capacity to TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY FINANCE OF INNOVATIVE FIRMS absorb PRO ACTIVE POLICIES 20 = Technological progress 0 Technology in the developing country High Income Upper Middle Lower Middle Low Income Income Income In-country di usion Sources: World Bank, Global Economic Prospects (2008) Sources: World Bank, Global Economic Prospects (2008) (Intensity of scientific innovation and invention, High-income countries=100) Parallel to this development, there has been an increase in production fragmentation within firms. This trend is confirmed by empirical evidence on the amount of goods imported by US parent companies originating from their subsidiaries abroad (see Chart 4). Such fragmentation of production systems has created new opportunities for technology diffusion, as global supply chains open up possibilities for sharing of knowledge, mobility of personnel, etc. Chart 4 Trends in Trends in Production Fragmentation Production Fragmentation Mexico Malaysia Brazil China Philippines India Billion USD 8 40 7 30 6 20 5 10 0 4 1990 1992 1994 1196 1998 2000 2002 3 2 1 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Sources: Giorgio Barba Navaretti, Ancona KEF VII, 2008 www.worldbank.org/eca/kef 14 Patents and Patent Citations as Indicators of Technological Integration Plenary session II, led by Professors Lee Branstetter, Lucio Picci, and Albert Hu, turned to the role of intellectual property rights (IPRs) as leading mechanisms for technology absorption. Specifically, an extensive literature shows that patent citations are useful metrics for investigating how existing “pieces� of patented knowledge have contributed to the creation and appropriation of new patented knowledge. The underlying reason is that a company that obtains a patent on an invention is legally required to disclose important information about the new technology, making such information public. In view of this, patent citations are used as indicators of disembodied knowledge flows in the academic literature.4 Expanding on this issue, Lee Branstetter suggested that in the context of emerging markets, patents provide rich information on technological development paths of “follower� countries. Although it is true that some patents are “breakthrough� inventions, the vast majority of patented inventions are “incremental� in nature. Empirical analysis demonstrates that the most successful “technological followers�, are those that engage in incremental invention at early stages of their development. For instance, in the case of Japan, already in mid-1960s the firms and industry were engaged in generating large numbers of mostly incremental patents. Following Japan’s steps, Taiwan and Korea began to increase their patenting rapidly in the 1980s and early 1990s. More recently, India and China have substantially increased their patenting. A careful examination of ECA-generated patents can therefore provide a detailed look into the absorption or innovation processes taking place in the region. The ECAKE II Report undertakes such a study to identify temporal trends, along with results for specific geographic and technologic areas, where absorption and incremental innovation has been concentrated. In addition, citations received in ECA patents are used to provide an indication of their technological impact, whereas citations made by ECA patents provide an indication of the knowledge base which the ECA inventors draw on. The main patenting in ECA display some trends: • Within ECA there are sharp differences in patenting across countries, with four leading countries being: Hungary, the Czech Republic, the Russian Federation, and Poland. • Among the four, Hungary and the Czech Republic fare significantly better than Russia and Poland (see Chart 5). 4 Please refer to ECAKE II for empirical study results on patents and patent citations as channels for technology ab- sorption. Knowledge Economy Forum VII 15 Chart 5 U.S. Patents Granted per Million Population U.S. Patents Granted 9 per Million 8 Population U.S. patents granted pe million population 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Year patents granted Russia Hungary Poland Czech Republic Source: Globalization and Technology Absorption in Europe and Central Asia. The Role ofTrade, FDI, and Cross-border Knowledge Flows. World Bank, 2008. • Over the period of 1993-2006, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Russia, Poland, Slovenia, Bulgaria, and Ukraine (ECA-7) obtained 5,489 U.S. patents5. In addition, it appears that: • R&D communities in many ECA countries are relatively isolated from international technological trends, • Indigenous patents in ECA make fewer citations to the existing state of the art than comparable patents filed in other parts of the world, • ECA indigenous patents cite inventions that have a lesser impact in terms of citation patterns, and • The number of indigenous patents in the ECA region is low relative to the level of R&D investment. Nonetheless, global R&D partnerships have allowed the ECA region to improve its low innovative productivity. This trend emerges from the large fraction of ECA patents that are being “co-invented�6 with Western economies (see Chart 6). Thus, on the whole, the quality and quantity of ECA patenting is driven by the multinational R&D, which has encouraged ECA inventors to participate in international co-invention. 5 As compared to India-based inventors, who obtained 3,331 and China-based inventors, who obtained 4,063 U.S. patents. Hence, the performance of the ECA-7 countries has been much better on a per-capita basis, however, ECA- 7 patenting in the U.S. has not grown significantly in recent years, while India and China have surged ahead. 6 A co-invented patent is one where at least one listed inventor is located in the ECA region, and at least one inventor is located outside the region (see ECAKE II). 16 The Expanding Role of International Co-invention in the ECA 7 Chart 6 The Expanding Role of International Co-invention in the ECA 7 The Expanding 700 Role of 700 600 International 600 Co-invention in Number of U.S. patents grants 500 the ECA 7 Number of U.S. patents grants 500 400 400 300 300 200 200 100 100 0 0 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 1993 1995 1997 1999 Year patent granted 2001 2003 2005 Year patent granted Total patents Purely indigenous patents Total patents Purely indigenous patents Source: Globalization and Technology Absorption in Europe and Central Asia. The Role ofTrade, FDI, and Cross-border Knowledge Flows. World Bank, 2008. Source: Globalization and Technology Absorption in Europe and Central Asia. The Role ofTrade, FDI, and Cross-border Knowledge Flows. World Bank, 2008. International Co-invention in ECA International Co-invention in ECA 100% 100% 80% Number of U.S. patents grants 80% Number of U.S. patents grants 60% 60% 40% 40% 20% 20% 0% 0% 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990Year patent granted1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 1991 1992 1993 Year patent granted All Same ECA Di erent ECA ECA and OECD ECA amd Other Countries All Same ECA Di erent ECA ECA and OECD ECA amd Other Countries Source: Lee Branstetter, Ancona KEF VII, 2008 www.worldbank.org/eca/kef Source: Lee Branstetter, Ancona KEF VII, 2008 www.worldbank.org/eca/kef These findings confirm the need for ECA R&D sector reforms, which will help the region to build internationally integrated innovation systems that can adequately respond to local industrial needs. Based on this, the following policy recommendation for ECA countries can be highlighted from the ECAKE II Report: • Science and innovation policy in the region should encourage ECA countries to promote international collaboration and support a greater role for the private sector in knowledge generation. • Governments should encourage foreign R&D investment and international R&D collaboration. • Sufficient human capital development and competitive investment climate will need to be present to facilitate the absorption process. Knowledge Economy Forum VII 17 2. The Italian Experience with SME Manufacturing Cluster Development In Italy the rapid postwar growth of the private sector in traditional industries was achieved with the backing of regional industrial policies, and was discussed in plenary sessions III, IV, and VI. The sui generis small and medium enterprise (SME) cluster development model7 ultimately allowed Italy’s products to be recognized worldwide. This section provides an in-depth look at the Italian industrial district development experience (see Box 1 for the historical context), on the effects such economic structure has on knowledge creation and absorption, and on how this model could be, potentially, transferred to countries in the ECA region.8 Contributing to the plenary session on policies for regional integration, Fabrizio Costa emphasized that production within a cluster is distributed amongst many firms that are highly specialized in either a specific technological or operational area. The result is a bottom-up development model that propels districts’ growth, both because this cooperation provides a strategic advantage for quality improvement and because it is a fertile ground for “external economies� (in contrast to the normal “scale economies�). The presentation suggested that Italy’s success in developing industrial districts can be attributed to two major factors: • Prior existence of creativity and entrepreneurial skill in the regions in question, complemented by such community values as reciprocal exchange among families and a culture of savings and hard work – “share-crop� (mezzadro),9 and • Prior presence of diffused local systems of SMEs - clusters or industrial/productive districts. 7 Industrial districts are regarded as possible motors of knowledge creation, absorption and innovation. Alfred Mar- shall argued that firms historically confined to a given geographical region benefit from the availability of skilled labor, knowledgeable agents and new ideas that circulate freely throughout the district. Knowledge within SME clusters is regarded as a public good that gets diffused due to spillovers and technological externalities. Economists also point out that industrial clusters effectively and efficiently stimulate the innovation of new processes by some firms and its absorption by others. 8 Due to its success, the Italian model of rapid industrialization has been widely studied by economic-historians and economists. Sections to follow take advantage of the contributions by Becattini (1991), Becattini and Coltorti (2005), Bellandi (2002), Belussi and Pilotti (2002), Boari (2001), Lorenzen (2001-2002), Spadavecchia (2005) and Parrilli, (2004). 9 Due to its success, the Italian model of rapid industrialization has been widely studied by economic-historians and economists. Sections to follow take advantage of the contributions by Becattini (1991), Becattini and Coltorti (2005), Bellandi (2002), Belussi and Pilotti (2002), Boari (2001), Lorenzen (2001-2002), Spadavecchia (2005) and Parrilli, (2004). 18 Historical Context and Development of SME Clusters in Italy Box 1: Historical One of the most successful cases of regional economic development was observed Context and in Italy, where the emergence of industrial districts in the 1970s was the basis for Development of SME Clusters in further economic and industrial development in the country. The Italian experience Italy has shown that industrial clusters comprised by SMEs can make a crucial contribution towards creating and sharing “tacit� and “codified� knowledge without endangering the coordination of productive activities. In the post-World War II years, a “top-down� approach, concentrated on large enterprise development, was adopted by the Italian government. In this period, growth occurred mainly within the industrial triangle of Milan, Turin and Genoa. Concurrently, the state subsidized infrastructure projects and gave fiscal support in Southern Italy through the establishment of the Cassa per il Mezzogiorno. This period saw significant economic progress of industrial sectors like petrochemicals, steel, natural gas, chemicals electromechanical engineering, electronics, and energy equipment; additionally, investments were made into the development of motorways, telephone networks, electricity infrastructure. However, in the early 1960s several factors caused the productivity of large enterprises to decline: 1. The largely unsuccessful nationalization of the electricity industry in 1963. 2. Government subsidization of industries that relied on foreign licenses, did not invest in original technological content and were unable to create a competitive advantage in foreign markets. 3. The absence of private capital inflows and the entrepreneurial crisis experienced by companies due to government interventions. 4. The demise of the Bretton Woods system which caused the Lira to devalue - hurting large enterprises but benefiting light industrial goods exporting industries. With the decline of large industries, a new phase, characterized by the emergence of SME clusters, began in Italy. Unlike large enterprises, SME clusters had less complex production and emphasized business models with continual innovation of less capital in- tensive goods. The switch towards highly differentiated goods was a response to a grow- ing personalized demand, which was generated because mass-produced Italian products were of lower quality compared to those produced by other industrialized countries. SME clusters saw notable growth in the 1970s, when they constituted over a quarter of the industrial system. They initially developed in already industrialized areas of Le Marche, Veneto, southern Lombardy, Emilia-Romagna, Tuscany, Piedmont, Friuli- Venezia Giulia, and Abruzzi. Company profiles within clusters were rather traditional, where barriers to entry were lower. As an example, Chart 7 provides an overview of the industrial clusters found within the Le Marche area – one of the most productive cluster regions in Italy. Source: Cristina Boari, Industrial Clusters, Focal Firms, and Economic Dynamism: A Perspective from Italy, World Bank Institute, 2001. Knowledge Economy Forum VII 19 Chart 7 International Co-invention in ECA An example of a well-developed industrial area in Italy – the Marche Source: Fabrizio Costa, Ancona KEF VII, 2008 www.worldbank.org/eca/kef While tradition, culture, contractual and market structure considerations played an important role in the successful development of the Italian industrial districts, it is also important to place this experience into an economic context and to consider the specific pre-conditions and policies that furthered their growth: • Large industry development provided a fertile ground for SME cluster development. Although large scale industrialization has the potential of raising barriers to entry, in the case of Italy such development contributed directly to the overall economic growth and created an enabling environment in which SME clusters could emerge. • The proliferation of Italian SMEs can also be attributed to policies of production decentralization. As suggested in the literature, larger enterprises came to rely on subcontracting smaller firms in the 1970s. • The success of the Italian SME sector depended also on the fact that SMEs enjoyed a complementary rather than a competitive relationship with larger industries. They were able to use intermediate products like petrochemicals, steel, machinery, etc. as inputs in their production of customized consumer and light industry goods. The SMEs can therefore be viewed as actors completing the value chain in the economy. • At that stage, the economy had not yet reached its full productive and employment capacity, and as a consequence there was sufficient slack in the labor force so that people with the right set of production and market skills could join the SME clusters. 20 • Furthermore, as suggested by some presenters, SME cluster development succeeded due to high specialization and local division of labor – in other words, thanks to external rather than scale economies. SMEs were able to reduce production costs because of labor availability, context knowledge, diffused entrepreneurship, frequent spin-offs, coordinated competition and active co-operation among firms, widespread process innovation, and rapid imitation.10 The plenary sessions underlined the nature of the industrial district coordination mechanisms and governance structures. Specifically, attention was given to the cluster network structure - the linkages among firms in a cluster and those between the clusters and institutions such as banks, unions, and local governments.11 In this regard, Boari’s analysis points to the existence of four successive stages of SME growth and the evolution of inter-firm relationships (see Box 2 for a graphical representation of this process): • A focal firm has few vertical relationships with the suppliers that are strategic in nature and produces most of its components internally, since subcontracting to local firms is considered to be a short-term strategy. • Firms start to subcontract more complex parts – this decentralization requires trust between focal firms and specialized suppliers. Here, SMEs become technically self- sufficient, gain financial independence, and are able to offer their products to a variety of clients. • Horizontal relationships and trust between suppliers is firmly established. This is the phase where SMEs interact amongst themselves at the innovation phases of product development and the focal firm loses its centrality within the network. • Suppliers are now coordinating a network of secondary subcontractors. Focal firms are able to commit increasing resources towards creating a competitive advantage in their final products, in part because they now delegate to their suppliers many activities that used to be performed internally. 10 Expanding on this argument, recent literature establishes that SME cluster activities were different from those of large enterprises since they relied on reproduction of trust, entrepreneurial, and specialized complementary rela- tionships. It is further contended that by the 1970s many SMEs relied on modern and specialized machinery and that their final products had acquired the “Made in Italy� image globally, which provided an important competitive advantage. 11 The literature on this issue points out the significance of “focal firms�. Focal firms are companies that developed over the course of the 1970s as spin-offs of larger industrial firms that went through a significant downsizing or had staff that possessed enough entrepreneurial and technical skill to build their own businesses. Focal firms developed as leaders of SME clusters and were: · providers of markets for SMEs; · “incubators� supporting and providing incentives for spin-offs, providing their contractors with necessary technical and managerial skills; · supporters of start-ups, extending their relationship networks to SMEs; and · archetypes for development and growth of other SMEs. Knowledge Economy Forum VII 21 Box 2: Evolution of Relationship between a Leading Firm and Suppliers Evolution of Relationship LF between a Leading Firm S S S and Suppliers STAGE 1 LF S S S STAGE 2 LF S S S STAGE 3 LF S S S S STAGE 4 Source: Cristina Boari, Industrial Clusters, Focal Firms, and Economic Dynamism: A Perspective from Italy, World Bank Institute, 2001. Empirical evidence suggests that in Italy the industrial cluster structure evolved based on this model. In other words, Italian industrial clusters developed through incentive and cognitive coordination. This is to say that after initially relying on strengthening the ties and creating mutual dependencies (incentive coordination), SMEs established a level of mutual trust through furthering their communication within a broader institutional environment of trade (industrial cluster); the latter is known as cognitive coordination. Mr. Salvatore Rossi addressed the question of how Italian industrial growth model has fared with the surge of globalization undergone in manufacturing industries. The presentation highlighted that, in general, globalization has caused Italy’s GDP growth and labor productivity to slow down in both absolute and relative terms. This slowdown affected the productivity of SMEs clusters, where small firm size delayed most companies’ adjustment to the new technological and market environment. According to this view, firm size and family ownership are at the root of the Italian growth and productivity crisis.12 Over the past four years, however, this trend has been reversed. The outcomes of the 2007 Bank of Italy Survey on manufacturing showed that many firms went through restructuring and market repositioning. These results suggest that specialization is less relevant than 12 While some successful SMEs in the traditional sectors suffered because they failed to evolve into medium- and larger-size companies, a different literature (Belussi and Pilotti 2002, Becattini and Dei Ottati 2005, and Guer- rieri, et al. 2001) suggests that the competitiveness of Italian industrial districts did not vary much with increasing globalization, and in some cases actually fared better than that of larger enterprises. Since SMEs were already successfully integrated into global export markets in the 1980s, globalization of the 1990s did not appear to affect their performance in a negative way. Many firms were able to effectively upgrade their production processes. These authors find evidence that over the course of the 1990s, industrial districts’ export revenues continued to contribute positively towards Italy’s trade balance. 22 expected and indicate that “winning companies� are positioned mostly within traditional rather than high-tech sectors. Additionally, export and value-added growth has increased among firms that are: • Open to ICT adoption, • Complement ICT technology with highly-skilled human capital, • Have reorganized towards more horizontal structures, and • Invested in “tertiary� supporting activities like marketing, branding, and customer service. The Italian industrial cluster development model is a classic example of regional development and innovation but to apply it in other contexts, it is important to understand which social and economic conditions were essential for its development. The next section reviews additional factors that were conducive to this success. 3. Enabling Conditions and Policies for Cluster Development and Revitalization Summing up, the contributors to the forum outlined conditions necessary for successful development of the industrial cluster model: • Presence of business associations and well-targeted regional and local policy. Business associations and regional governments play a key coordinating role through provision of support/information about markets, technologies, and professional advice. • Specialized educational institutions with relevant coursework and offering training services for firms. • Access to finance at reasonable financial rates. • Cluster governance development to strengthen external economies at later stages of districts’ development. As clusters mature, the nature of services that strengthen the external economies (see Chart 8) changes (e.g. specialized skills labor and resources) making governance of districts an integral issue. • Establishment of technological centers to further innovation, diversification, and interna- tionalization of local production networks. Box 3 presents a specific example in Italy. Factors essential for promoting Collective Efficiency of a cluster Chart 8 Factors essential Collective E ciency for promoting Collective External Joint economies actions Efficiency of a cluster Collective E ciency Source: Roberta Rabellotti, Ancona KEF VII, 2008 www.worldbank.org/eca/kef. Knowledge Economy Forum VII 23 Box 3 Italy’s Experience with Support Services Italy’s Experience with Since access to finance was limited in Italy in the late-1970s, the Italian SME sector relied on Support Services state financial support (e.g. soft loans, grants, and fiscal subsidies) to raise their profitability and competitiveness. Hence, such financial policy was also a mechanism for correcting capital market failures and capital shortage. Italian industrial clusters also rely on technological centers that support the processes of diversification and internationalization of regional production with research and innovation services, as well as establishing certification of quality. Specific services offered by centers such as Meccano and SPES were outlined in the presentations: - Entrepreneurial development of firms; - Integrated R&D services; - Industrialization and licensing support; - Quality standards enhancement services; - Advanced technology transfer, and hardware/software support; - Individual project management support; - Knowledge management services; - Specialized human resources training. The transferability of regional industrial cluster models to different countries faces a number of challenges.13 One issue that policy-makers need to take into account is that SME cluster development policies need to be consistent with the economic, social and regulatory setting in the relevant industry. Specifically, different policies will be implied depending on a country’s stage of industrial development. In countries where for historical reasons the economy is dominated by large enterprises, which could apply to Russia, Ukraine, and other large ECA countries, any incentives to SMEs to stimulate the formation of new clusters may also require entry-enhancing and competition policies that lead to “vertical disintegration� (via spin-offs from the large companies as well as entry of new suppliers) and opening up markets to horizontal competition. In a country where there are better competitive conditions, there may be incipient SME clusters but these lag behind and cannot compete on global markets, so the main issue may be one of promoting a higher degree of technological innovation and knowledge absorption. This will call for a different set of policies such as overhauling educational institutions, restructuring R&D centers, building a better link between industries and educational facilities, and development of specialized instruments like business incubators, S&T parks, technology transfer offices, and venture capital funds. The Italian SME clusters faced this challenge, having to compete on one hand with large companies with production facilities in low-cost countries, and on the other with companies that made substantial investments in technology and branding to enjoy the advantages of 13 This section draws on theories presented by Parrilli (2004), Brusco (1990), Markunsen (1996), Guerieri and Pietro- belli (2004), Boari (2001), and Asheim (1994). 24 product differentiation. In response, regional governments stepped up their support along the lines set out above, in an attempt to increase the added-value and therefore competitive advantage of the companies. Indesit, a manufacturer of household appliances based in Fabriano, is a good example of these policies facilitated and accelerated the upgrading process. Adequate skills provided by local universities have been conducive to a highly intensive use of IT in product design have led to world-class product life-cycle management, with spillovers to those suppliers in the region that manufacture components. The rest of the section is devoted to looking in-depth at three specific policy measures, highlighted during the Forum. These policy measures have often been used to facilitate industrial development and encourage technology innovation in traditional industries, as well as respond to the market demand conditions for skilled workers in the private sector. These reforms are namely in higher education institutions (HEIs), in skill and capacity development of private sector firms, and in establishment of business incubators (BIs). Implementation of such policy tools should increase competitiveness of SMEs operating in traditional industries through customizing and tailoring their products to fit higher quality specifications. In addition, these instruments should promote further diversification of the regional economic base towards higher value-added industries. (a) Higher Education Institutions As highlighted in plenary sessions V and VII and in Panel B of the Forum, good quality higher education is essential not only for human capital creation, but also for improving a given economy’s technological productivity, public investment, and building a robust private sector with a large share of SMEs. Universities can help to bridge gaps between the academic research environment and manufacturing sectors through organization of joint ventures and research projects. It should be the role of HEIs to put together and take part in professional events that target technological exchanges and multiparty concurrent development of the industrial and educational sectors. In addition, universities can advance the establishment of “business incubators� which facilitate and further private sector development. In his presentation Alberto Rodriguez stated that within universities, attention should be given to provision of the necessary resources for student populations. This entails creating internship programs, specifically within the SME sector; establishing partnerships within the education sphere, which act to improve quality of education, education management, teacher training, as well as student assessment criteria; and generating extra financial resources through consulting contracts which could be directed towards improving educational settings within universities. However, as pointed out by Jaana Puukka, multiple barriers on national, regional, and institutional levels preclude such collaboration and activities. On a national level the most common barriers include uncoordinated HE, S&T and territorial policy, limits to HEIs’ autonomy, and limited HEI incentives promoting their continuous involvement. Knowledge Economy Forum VII 25 Considering the regional level, common obstacles include fragmented and weak local governments, intra-regional and inter-institutional competition, and the fact that HEIs are often not part of regional strategy work and implementation. Finally, on the institutional level, weak management, lack of entrepreneurial culture, tensions between regional engagement and academic excellence, and lack of incentives to individuals emerge as main barriers. To make HEIs more effective in the overall growth strategy, governments should promote collaboration among various parties involved in the HE field. In addition, officials should also encourage collaboration between national and local government levels. An effective enabling environment should allow for an agreement on a set of common objectives to be reached and for complementary policies and educational frameworks to be implemented. Finally, before any HEI reforms are undertaken, existing educational structures need to be analyzed. Moving beyond general pointers, some of the presentations provided insights and specific suggestions for the stakeholders of this reform process (see Table 1). Table 1 Pointers for stakeholders involved in HEI reform Pointers for stakeholders Central • Strengthen HEIs’ autonomy in terms of human, financial, and physical resources. involved in HEI reform Governments • Develop a comprehensive set of measures and indicators for monitoring and evaluation. should: • Encourage HEIs to participate in regional governance bodies, and themselves actively partake in decisions made by HEIs. • Promote collaboration between HEIs, gather resources for joint regional and urban programs, and work towards establishing a more supportive environment for university-enterprise cooperation. • Always maintain the objective of developing human capital as a priority. Regional • Concentrate on creating a permanent partnership structure for such major local stakeholders Authorities as industries, communities, and HEIs. should: • Mobilize and rely on HEI resources when working on regional strategies. • Join HEIs’ investment efforts, and target programs beneficial to regional businesses and communities. HEIs • Map external links and carry out an evaluation of institutional capacity to respond to regional should: needs. • Revisit institutional mission to adopt a wide agenda of regional engagement and outreach; monitor results and acknowledge that regional engagement enhances the core missions of teaching and research. • Develop senior management teams, establish a regional development office to mainstream the regional agenda; develop facilitators. • Establish modern administration with HR and financial resources management systems: Review recruitment, hiring and reward systems. • Establish partnership organisations between HEIs Source: Jaana Puukka, Ancona KEF VII, 2008 www.worldbank.org/eca/kef 26 To better conceptualize such objectives, examples of HEI transformations that have take place in different countries are highlighted in Box 4. Good practice examples: How to mobilize higher education for industry? Box 4: Good practice In Castellon, Valencia, Universidad Jaume I is recognised as a world leader R&D in the tile industry. It has helped to transform examples: How to the region’s traditional industry. The strategy is built on technology transfer, spin-offs development and upgrading of mobilize higher education for existing technologies. Today, Valencia is a global leader in the tiles and ceramics industry (Valencia Region SER). industry? In Aalborg University, Denmark, up to 50% of the study work consists of problem-oriented project work: students work in teams to solve problems that have been identified in co-operation with firms, public organisations and other institutions. At any one time there are 2000-3000 ongoing projects that ensure the university’s engagement with the surrounding society (Jutland-Funen SER). In the North East of England, 5 HEIs have set up Knowledge Houses (KH) to help companies access university skills, expertise and specialist services. KH offers expert solutions for developing ideas and solving problems through collaboration, consultancy, training and R&D. KH receives 1000 enquiries from client companies and delivers around 200 client contracts on an annual basis. Business growth at 25% per year. The cradle-to-grave service stretches from the receipt of enquiries to delivery and post-completion evaluation (NE England SER). Source: Jaana Puukka, Ancona KEF VII, 2008 www.worldbank.org/eca/kef The pointers for reform - based on a wide consensus between stakeholders - are highly pertinent to the ECA region. Although there is a well-established history of high education rates with in the ECA countries, the labor force remains limited because of the lack of relevance of skills and educational content to the adoption and diffusion of technologies promoting greater competitiveness. Deficiencies in tertiary and vocational education remain significant barriers to technology-driven growth. The World Bank Unleashing Prosperity report finds a clear mismatch between the skills sought by enterprises and those available within the labor market in ECA countries. There has been sizable labor reallocation across and within sectors during the transition, which have been fundamental for increasing productivity, but current labor market frictions inhibit economic growth and slow down capital mobility to new industries. Regional trends in the report demonstrate that such labor market rigidity and workforce deficiency in education attainment has had a negative impact on productivity growth within ECA countries. Therefore, most ECA countries would need to adopt educational reforms. As demonstrated in the case of Slovenia, new HE policies should introduce more flexibility into the labor market, enhance the skill-set of human capital in accordance with industry demands, stimulate the shift of workers from lower- to higher-productivity enterprises, and, thus, increase business and economic growth. Knowledge Economy Forum VII 27 (a) Building Skills and Capacity by the Private Sector Besides strengthening the supply-side of skills delivery in HEIs, it is important for the private sector to develop programs that accelerate on-the-job learning and encourage lifelong learning adapted to the new demand and production patterns. In plenary session VI on human capital development in firms, Henning Scheele and Sreekala Ramamurthy discussed the examples of KraussMaffei and WIPRO, respectively, to illustrate how the private sector has responded to its need for highly skilled labor, through apprenticeship programs and strategic initiatives to promote skill development among its employees. In the case of KraussMaffei, a German company that leads the market in plastics machinery and has over 4,000 employees, an apprenticeship program was developed as a mode of investment in the firm’s resources of human capital. Through this program, KraussMaffei is engaged in skill development by: 1) Maintaining a ratio of apprentices to staff that is above the industry average; 2) Cooperating with universities on the practical application section of a Bachelor Degree in Engineering; 3) Participating in the German dual-education system (where 1-3.5 years could be spent in a hands-on environment); 4) Offering an apprenticeship in clerical and technical professions (office assistant, technical designer, mechanic, welder, sheet metal worker, machine operator, electrician, and painter); and 5) Offering training and further qualifications on a wide range of topics such as commercial, technical, IT issues, foreign languages or personal and management skills. A valuable characteristic of KraussMaffei’s model lies in its inclusive nature, which ensures that the apprenticeship program is one that involves all levels of the hierarchy of the company through diverse methods of communication; such as individual coaching, appraisal interviews, internal workshops, and management/sales force potential analysis. Through this holistic approach, the program becomes an integral part of the company’s operations. Similarly, the presentation by Sreekala Ramamurthy of WIPRO highlighted the techniques used by its Talent Management unit. Much like KraussMaffei, WIPRO is a global company with an international presence on every continent, employing over 16,000 people. Its integrated talent management structure is built around a competency framework, which includes: over 500,000 person days of training per year, in which around 5,000 employees undergo training every day; 5,000 employees choose to pursue their Masters Degrees through a work integrated learning program; and 15 need-based training requests from businesses every day. 28 Krauss Maffei’s Apprenticeship Program Chart 9: Krauss Maffei Krauss Maffei’s Apprenticeship Program Krauss Maffei’s HR Training Concept is Applied to all Hierarchy Levels Elements MDs Appraisal Interview Division Heads Performance Review Analysis of Potential Senior Managers Quali cation / Coaching Department Heads Apprentices / Trainees Succession Planning Team Leaders First Line Managers Workshops / Moderation Employees Source: Henning Scheele, Ancona KEF VII 2008 www.worldbank.org/eca/kef. WIPRO’s structure allows for a targeted approach vis-à-vis its Behavioral School. The School lays out three target areas, a Visionary Manager Program (VMP), the Global Manager Program (GMP), and the Future Manager Program (FMP). These three training facilities allow the WIPRO staff to focus on the development of specific skill-sets that will make the company viable in the long run. Once an employee becomes enrolled in these Project Management Academies, he/she will undergo a rigourous process consisting of a technical training, evaluations, and level assessment before being accelerates in his/her career. WIPRO’s Talent Management Chart 10/A: WIPRO’s Talent Management Source: Sreekala Ramamurthy, Ancona KEF VII 2008 www.worldbank.org/eca/kef Knowledge Economy Forum VII 29 Chart 10/B: WIPRO’s Talent Management WIPRO’s Talent Management Source: Sreekala Ramamurthy, Ancona KEF VII 2008 www.worldbank.org/eca/kef The versatility of the training choices in these companies and the size of the funding such initiatives take up are a response to the changing business environment in a globalized world. Investment in workforce and organisational skills has become a necessary condition for firms to remain competitive. This is true even in traditional industries, because gradual convergence in labor costs implies that competitiveness needs to be based on the efficiency of manufacturing practices, product quality and innovation. (a) Business Incubators Another way in which technology transfer and entrepreneurial activity can be facilitated is through the establishment of business incubators (BIs). As reported by John Gabriel Goddard, European governments extensively use BIs as a tool for promoting technology transfer from public research organizations to the private sector enterprises. This mechanism is regarded as a way to reduce commercial and technical risks involved in the process of transferring R&D results, developed by scientist teams with limited business skills, to the market. Given the nature of the activities undertaken by BIs, government incentives and oversight or support from HEIs should be separated from the day-to-day administration. When 30 establishing BIs, attention should be given to selecting managing teams that possess strong business expertise in related product markets. This will make screening at entry, mentoring of businesses and graduation/exit decisions more effective. Should there be need for more specialized technical/IPR advice, BIs are advised to rely on external expert opinions. In addition, BIs should have a clear set of operational objectives that are compatible with their strategies and they should act to reduce distortive incentives. BIs provide a variety of services that are critical for start-ups. As illustrated in Chart 9, tailored financial services offered by BIs are an important component in managing start- up and scale-up costs. In addition, concessional support or provision of grants can be useful at the initial phases of start-up for wealth-constrained entrepreneurs who will find it difficult to self-finance or to borrow based on collateral. Example of services offered by BIs Chart 9: Example of Financial services offered by BIs Public sources of support for tenant firms services offered Percentage of respondents by BIs Percentage of respondents Local authorities 45% Assistance in financial planning 79% Regional development agencies 59% Referrals to a network of investors 76% National programs for SMEs 64% National programs for innovative rms 58% Non-reimbursable grants paid from public funds 41% Tax credits 26% Loans tied to added-value business services 12% Unemployment bene ts drawn by the rm’s owner(s) 27% European programs for SMEs 41% Seed capital in return for equity 23% European programs for innovative rms 31% Source: John Gabriel Goddard, Ancona KEF VII 2008 www.worldbank.org/eca/kef. Sauro Longhi shared an example of how Università Politecnica delle Marche acts as a BI environment, helping its students to start companies in high-tech fields. In this respect, it is important for a university to actively promote its research activities, establish contacts with industrial and financial partners, and to provide business administration support. In addition, it is essential to make sure that enough funding exists for different stages of any project; i.e. seed money for start-up periods, funds for technology and market development in early stages, and resources for market roll-out and technology refinements in growth stages. Furthermore, when spinning-off new technology driven enterprises, attention should be given to creating value by filing for patents, recognizing marketing potential of the unique qualities, making sure that projects remain profitable, and investing in good business organization and management structures. BIs are most likely to succeed in their objectives when they form part of a broader public platform for technology transfer, rather than when such centers are planned as standalone entities. Further country-by-country analysis is needed to see whether existing BIs can Knowledge Economy Forum VII 31 foster stronger linkages with national and regional innovation systems and whether there is a necessity to merge functions of BIs with other instruments (e.g. S&T parks, Technology Transfer Offices, VC funds, etc. – all of which have different capacities, goals, and networks, and which might be required at different stages). In the case of Russia, discussed by Ivan Bortnik, a lack of technology transfer programs over the course of the early to mid 1990s was followed by a resurgence of initiatives in recent years. On the national level, high-end technological projects in nanotechnology and space exploration have received a lot of support. Simultaneously, investments are being made into the establishment of EC-Russia joint projects. Innovation funds have been established at federal and regional levels. Since 2004, FDI into the Russian economy has increased, and multinational companies have successfully established a number of R&D centers. Venture capital funds have been set up with a combination of private and public resources, the regulatory environment for SMEs has improved, and a large number of BIs are being established. Major technology transfer tools currently utilized in Russia include technology brokers, consulting centers, facilities for technology development, information services, BIs, technoparks, technology centers, as well as an array of more specific programs. Although these mechanisms are increasing the availability of technology services for business and start-up consultations, it appears that some of them are experiencing problems. Russian BIs lack clients because of a poor pipeline of potential projects, have weak management teams, and have limited access to support instruments. In addition, technoparks are suffering from lack of government support. Finally, problems also exist with consulting and information services. Because of these disfunctionalities, the initial stages of firm creation and technology development are the weakest within the innovation chain. More general problems stem from the fact that there are not enough economic incentives that could stimulate large corporations to become technologically innovative. Furthermore, a lot of scientific resources and instruments remain outdated and not enough linkages exist between science centers and the private sector. Finally, new innovation instruments, present within the economy, are not being widely used. 32 CONCLUDING REMARKS The presentations by practitioners and academics at the KEF VII resulted in a rich discussion and a plethora of policy recommendations to support knowledge and technology absorption in the ECA region based on international best practice examples, especially that of the Italian industrial districts, and in-depth analysis of empirical patterns of patents and other absorption channels. The policy options discussed can assist ECA countries to deal with competitiveness challenges connected to the increasing speed of globalization and technological change. In this context, the renewed openness to trade and to FDI has brought new opportunities for productivity growth via technology absorption. But for technology flows to be the motor for economic catching-up, there is still a need to improve the investment climate, invest in and reorient the educational systems in light of changing skill demands, and of introducing R&D institutions that respond to market needs and have increasing private participation. These policies are particularly vital for the development of vibrant SME clusters, with the capability to absorb and develop new technologies and production processes. The policies suggested at the Ancona Forum point out to a number of catalysts for greater private sector productivity and growth in the region. There is a large and as yet largely untapped source of advanced technological knowledge stemming from the entry and joint ventures with multinational companies. These need to be exploited more effectively by domestic firms. It is also important to recognize the potential for “economies of scope� as a competitive advantage, helping clusters of SMEs to flourish in both new and traditional industries that would otherwise be incontestable due to scale economies enjoyed by large incumbent firms. But the experience in Italy shows that achieving these positive feedbacks between cooperating SMEs requires a minimum level of corporate governance, trust, and capabilities, and getting there can require government support. In addition, the Ancona Forum offered a unique opportunity to continue to develop cross- country networks of professionals in the area of innovation as a resource base to expedite the transfer of knowledge on successes and failures that could prove valuable for policy makers across the entire ECA region. We eagerly look forward to continuing this tradition of networking and exchanges on technology absorption issues and expertise at the eighth annual Knowledge Economy Forum to be held in 2009. Knowledge Economy Forum VII 33 REFERENCES Asheim, B. 1994. “Industrial districts, inter-firm co-operation and endogenous technological development: the experience of developed countries,� in UNCTAD. Technological Dynamism in Industrial Districts. Geneva: UNCTAD. Becattini, G. 1991. “Italian Industrial Districts: Problems and Perspectives.� International Studies of Management and Organization 21 (1): 83-90. Becattini, G. and Coltorti, F. 2005. “Areas of Large Enterprise and Industrial Districts in the Development of Post-war Italy: A Preliminary Survey.� European Planning Studies 14 (8): 1105-1138. Becattini, G. and Dei Ottati, G. 2005. “The Performance of Italian Industrial Districts and Large Enterprise Areas in the 1990s.� European Planning Studies 14 (8): 1139-1162. Bellandi, M. 2002. “Italian Industrial Districts: An Industrial Economics Interpretation.� European Planning Studies 10 (4): 425-437. Belussi, F. and Pilotti, L. 2002. “Knowledge Creation, Learning and Innovation in Italian Industrial Districts.� Geogr. Ann. 84 B (2): 125-139. Boari, C. 2001. “Industrial Clusters, Focal Firms, and Economic Dynamism: A Perspective from Italy.� World Bank Institute Stock No. 37186: 24 pp Brusgo, S. 1990 “The idea of industrial districts,� in F. Pyke and W. Sengenberger (Eds). Industrial Districts and Interfirm Cooperation. Geneva: ILO. Europe and Central Asia Knowledge Economy Study Part II (ECAKE II). “Globalization and Technology Absorption in Europe and Central Asia: The Role of Trade, FDI, and Cross- border Knowledge Flows.� The World Bank.http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/ WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2008/06/25/000334955_20080625071640/Rendered/PDF/ 443850PUB0Tech101OFFICIAL0USE0ONLY1.pdf Guerrieri, P., Iammarino, S. and Pietrobelli, C. 2001. The Global Challenge to Industrial Districts Small and Medium Sized Enterprises in Italy and Taiwan. Elgar, Cheltenham. Guerieri, P. and Pietrobelli, C. 2004. Industrial Districts’ Evolution and Technological Regimes: Italy and Taiwan, Technovation. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Lorenzen, M. 2001-2002. “Ties, Trust, and Trade. Elements of a Theory of Coordination in Industrial Clusters.� International Studies of Management and Organization 32 (4): 14-34. Markunsen, A. 1996. “Sticky places in slippery space: a typology of industrial districts.� Economic Geography 72 Schmitz, H. 1997. “Collective Efficiency and Increasing Returns.� Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex. Working paper 50 Spadavecchia, A. 2005. “State Subsidies and the Source of Company Finance in Italian Industrial Districts, 1951-1991.� Oxford: Oxford University Press. Parrilli, M. D. 2004. “A Stage and Eclectic Approach to Industrial District Development: Two Policy Keys for ‘Survival’ Clusters in Developing Countries.� European Planning Studies 12 (8): 1115-1131. Note: The proceedings also relied on materials presented at the KEF VII Forum, Ancona. For the list of participants please refer to Annex 3. To access individual presentations please refer to the KEF VII website at www.worldbank.org/ eca/kef 34 ANNEX 1: AGENDA KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY FORUM VII Technology Absorption by Innovative Small and Medium Enterprises Ancona, Italy, June 17-19, 2008 Wedneday, June 18, 2008 10:15-10:45 OPENING CEREMONY Economics Faculty Marco Pacetti, Rector, Universitá Politecnica delle Marche Gian Mario Spacca, President, Marche Region Fabio Sturani, Mayor, Municipality of Ancona Patrizia Esposto Casagrande, President, Ancona Province Claudio Spinedi, Vice Director, General Directorate for Economic Cooperation and Multilateral Financial Institutions, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Ted Ahlers, Operations Director, ECA Region, World Bank Itzhak Goldberg, Advisor, Policy and Strategy, Private and Financial Sector, ECA Region, World Bank Moderator: Fernando Montes-Negret, Director, Private and Financial Sector, ECA Region, World Bank 10:45-12:15 PLENARY SESSION I Economics Faculty GLOBALIZATION & TECHNOLOGY ABSORPTION Andrew Burns, Lead Economist, Development Economics Prospects Group, World Bank Giorgio Barba Navaretti, Professor of Economics, Università degli Studi di Milano Alessandro Sterlacchini, Professor of Applied Economics, Universitá Politecnica delle Marche Salvatore Rossi, Managing Director, Economic Research and International Relations, Bank of Italy Moderator: Giuliano Conti, Professor, International Economics, Universitá Politecnica delle Marche 13:30-15:00 PLENARY SESSION II Economics Faculty TECHNOLOGY ABSORPTION CHANNELS Lee Branstetter, Associate Professor, Economics and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University Lucio Picci, European Commission - DG JRC - Institute for Prospective Technological Studies and Department of Economics, Università di Bologna Albert Hu, Professor, Economics, University of Singapore Moderator: Itzhak Goldberg, Senior Advisor, Policy and Strategy, Private and Financial Sector, ECA Region, World Bank 15:00-15:30 COFFEE BREAK Economics Faculty 15:30-17:30 PLENARY SESSION III Economics Faculty CLUSTERS & INTEGRATING SMEs IN GLOBAL SUPPLY CHAINS Roberta Rabellotti, Professor, Economics, Università del Piemonte Orientale Aleksei Prazdnitchnykh, Partner, Bauman Innovation John Roelofs, Vice President, PAC Group Patrizio Bianchi, Rector, Università degli Studi di Ferrara Moderator: Lalit Raina, Sector Manager, Private and Financial Sector, ECA Region 19:30-21:30 RECEPTION Fortino Napoleonico, Portonovo Marco Pacetti, Rector, Universitá Politecnica delle Marche Knowledge Economy Forum VII 35 ANNEX 1: AGENDA KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY FORUM VII Technology Absorption by Innovative Small and Medium Enterprises Ancona, Italy, June 17-19, 2008 Wednesday, June 18, 2008 09:00-10:30 PLENARY SESSION IV INDESIT Company ACHIEVING & MAINTAINING COMPETITIVENESS: HUMAN CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT IN FIRMS Henning Scheele, Recently Retired as VP Human Development and Personnel, Krauss Maffei, Germany Giuliano Calza, Human Resource Director, Organizational Development, INDESIT Company Sreekala Ramamurthy, General Manager, Talent Transformation, WIPRO, India Moderator: Alberto Rodriguez, Lead Education Specialist, Human Development, ECA Region, World Bank 10:30-11:00 COFFEE BREAK INDESIT Company 11:00-12:30 PLENARY SESSION V RESPONSIVE HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS: STRENGTHENING LINKS WITH INDUSTRY Chris Duke, Professor, Social Science and Planning, RMIT University, Australia Alberto Rodriguez, Lead Education Specialist, Human Development, ECA Region, World Bank Jaana Puukka, Analyst, Program on Institutional Management in Higher Education, OECD Moderator: Nina Arnhold, Senior Education Specialist, Human Development, ECA Region, World Bank 12:30-14:00 LUNCH INDESIT Company 14:00-15:30 PLENARY SESSION VI INDESIT Company POLICIES FOR REGIONAL INNOVATION Björn Asheim, Professor, Economic Geography and Deputy Director, Center for Innovation, Research and Competence in the Learning Economy, Lund University, Sweden Fabrizio Costa, Director, Economic Development Department, Marche Region Gianfranco Viesti, Professor of Applied Economics, Università degli Studi di Bari Moderator: Natasha Kapil, Innovation Specialist, Private and Financial Sector, ECA Region, World Bank 15:30-16:00 COFFEE BREAK INDESIT Company 16:00-19:30 SITE VISIT ROTATIONS Venue: FABRIANO SITE 1: INDESIT VIRTUAL REALITY LABORATORY SITE 2: FABRIANO HISTORICAL CENTER SITE 3: FRASASSI CAVES 20:00-22:30 BANQUET DINNER INDESIT Company 36 ANNEX 1: AGENDA KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY FORUM VII Technology Absorption by Innovative Small and Medium Enterprises Ancona, Italy, June 17-19, 2008 Thursday, June 19, 2008 09:00-10:30 PLENARY SESSION VII Economics Faculty NURTURING PARTNERSHIPS BETWEEN SMEs & TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER INSTITUTIONS Ivan Bortnik, Chairman, Foundation for Assistance to Small Innovative Enterprises (FASIE), Russia Gilbert Nicolaon, Former Head, Anvar, France Fritz Ohler, Director, Technopolis Group, Netherlands John Gabriel Goddard, Economist, Private and Financial Sector, ECA Region, World Bank Moderator: Irina Astrakhan, Senior Private Sector Development Specialist, Private and Financial Sector, ECA Region, World Bank 10:30-11:00 COFFEE Economics Faculty PANEL A PANEL B Economics Faculty Aula A Economics Faculty Aula A2 11:00-13:00 11:00-13:00 INSTITUTIONS & INFRASTRUCTURE HIGH TECHNOLOGY START-UPS AND TO MEET GLOBAL QUALITY UNIVERSITY SPIN-OFFS STANDARDS David Norris, Team Leader, CARDS 2006 Giuseppe Serazzi, Professor of Computer Regional Quality Infrastructure Science, Politecnico di Milano Mauricio N. Frota, Chairman, Post- Sauro Longhi, Professor, Engineering Graduation Metrology Program Metrology Faculty, UniversitáPolitecnicadelle Marche for Quality and Innovation, Pontifical Paolo Ratini, Project Manager, SPES Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro Donato Iacobucci, Professor, Industrial Letizia Urbani, Managing Director, Economics, Engineering Faculty, MECCANO UniversitáPolitecnicadelle Marche Moderator: Jean-Louis Racine, Science, Moderator: John Gabriel Goddard, Technology and Innovation Policy Economist, Private and Financial Sector, Specialist, Private and Financial Sector, ECA Region, World Bank ECA Region, World Bank 13:00-13:20 CLOSING REMARKS Economics Faculty Fernando Montes-Negret, Director, Private and Financial Sector, ECA Region, World Bank 13:30-14:30 LUNCH Economics Faculty 16:00-19:00 SITE VISIT ROTATIONS Pesaro SITE 1: COSMOB SITE 2: SCAVOLINI SITE 3: PESARO HISTORICAL CENTER 20:00 DINNER Ristorante Mastin Vecchio, Gradara Knowledge Economy Forum VII 37 ANNEX 2: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY FORUM VII Technology Absorption by Innovative Small and Medium Enterprises Ancona, Italy, June 17-19, 2008 Armenia First Name Last Name Title Organization Email Phone Vahe Danielyan Deputy Minister Ministry of Economy vdanielyan@minted.am +37410589473 Chairman of State Ministry of Education & Samvel Harutyunyan sharout@ysu.am +37410547018 Committee Science Enterprise Incubator Bagrat Yengibaryan Director info@eif.am +3741019797 Foundation Grigor Barseghyan Country Manager Microsoft - Armenia grigorb@microsoft.com +37410514889 Azerbaijan First Name Last Name Title Organization Email Phone Director of Foreign Trade & Economic Rufat Mahmud rufat.mahmud@economy.gov.az +994124924523 Department Relations Ministry of Comm. & Info Elmir Velizadeh Deputy Minister dm@mincom.gov.az +994124939305 Technologies Head of Rashad Nabiyev Finance & Economic Analysis rnabiyev.@mincom.gov,az +994124932458 Department Fuad Nasirov Deputy Director Ministry of Finance f.nasirov@maliyye.gov.az N/A Senior PSD Saida Bagirli World Bank sbagirli@worldbank.org N/A Specialist Belarus First Name Last Name Title Organization Email Phone Pavel Shulga Deputy Director Ministry of Finance ifdept@minfin.gov.by +375172002172 Deputy Minister Andrei Tur Ministry of Economy minec@economy.gov.by +375296347742 of Economy Bosnia and Herzegovina First Name Last Name Title Organization Email Phone Regional Development Agency Amela Malicbegovic Director amela@rez.ba +38761138303 for Central BiH Brano Vujicic President Association of IT in BiH - BAIT info@bait.org.ba +38733719025 Project Slavisa Draskovic Association of IT in BiH - BAIT info@bait.org.ba +38733719025 Coordinator 38 Bulgaria First Name Last Name Title Organization Email Phone Anna Yaneva Deputy Minister Ministry of Economy & Energy a.yaneva@mee.government.bg +35929407426 Eli Anvi Director Ministry of Economy & Energy e.anavi@mee.government.bg +35929407581 Stoynova- Operations Sofia Country Office, World Sylvia sstoynova@worldbank.org +35929697220 Vartanyanova Analyst Bank +35929713000 ext Todor Yalamov Coordinator ARC Fund Todor.yalamov@online.bg 322 Croatia First Name Last Name Title Organization Email Phone Ivo Friganovic Program Manager BICRO Ivo.friganovic@bicro.hr +38512360111 Chief Executive Domagoj Oreb Rudjer Innovations Ltd domagoj.oreb@r-i.hr +38512360111 Officer Director, PMU Science & Ministry of Science, Education Dragan Soljan Dragan.soljan@mzos.hr +38512352662 Technology and Sports Project Director, Ministry of Science, Education Hrvoje Mestric Directorate for hmestric@mzos.hr +38514594421 and Sports Science Professor, Srdjan Novak Technology University of Zagreb snovak@unizg.hr +38514698168 Transfer Office Georgia First Name Last Name Title Organization Email Phone Georgia National Science Natia Jokhadze Director jokhadze@gnsf.ge +99532954686 Foundation Ilia Chavchavadze State Gigi Tevzadze Rector gigi@iliauni.edu.ge +99532294197 University Italy First Name Last Name Title Organization Email Phone Senior Program Claudia Zambra Guizzetti & Associates Claudia@guizzetti.org +12027890001 Manager Kazakhstan First Name Last Name Title Organization Email Phone Administration of the Janybek Iskakov Deputy Chairman iskakov- Ds@akorda.kz +77172745145 President of Kazakhstan Administration of the Rassul Rakhimov Consultant Rakhimov_RN@akorda.kz +77172745844 President of Kazakhstan Kyrgyz Republic First Name Last Name Title Organization Email Phone Ministry of Economic Meerim Abdyeva Lead specialist mert@mail.gov.kg +996312620590 Development and Trade Head of FDI Policy Ministry of Economic Kubat Murzayev mert@mail.gov.kg +996312620590 Dept Development and Trade Knowledge Economy Forum VII 39 Macedonia First Name Last Name Title Organization Email Phone Business Start-up Centre Bojan Jovanoski Project Assistant at University Ss Cyril and bojan@mf.edu.mk +38978283848 Methodius Government of the Republic of Perica Vrboski N/A perica.vrboski@gs.gov.mk +3893221524 Macedonia Head of Economic Systems Government of the Republic of Natasa Stojmanovska natasa.stojmanovska@gs.gov.mk +3893221524 and Policies Macedonia Department Moldova First Name Last Name Title Organization Email Phone Iurie Muntean Deputy Minister Ministry of Economy & Trade imuntean@mec.gov.md +37322250121 Director of Institute of Economy, Finance& Valentina Fetiniuc fetiniuc@iefs.md +37322748650 Department Statistics ìMoldovan Export Promotion Lilia Russu Executive Director lilia.russu@miepo.md +37322242055 Organization Natalia Iachimov Director Hyper Media Group natalia_iachimov@yahoo.com +37322402864 Montenegro First Name Last Name Title Organization Email Phone Financial and Montenegrin Union of Slobodan Milatovic Administration upcg@cg.yu +38220209250 Employers Adviser Directorate for Development Communication Sanja Varajic of Small and Medium Sized sanja.varajic@nasme.cg.yu +38281406303 Adviser Enterprises Poland First Name Last Name Title Organization Email Phone Centre for European Agnieszka Olechnicka Warsaw University a.olechnicka@uw.edu.pl +48228261654 Regional and Local Studies Krzystof Krystowski Vice President AvioPolska Ltd moika.jarzyna@aviogroup.com +48226977710 Chief Adviser, Economy milena.jozwik-krakowiak@ Milena Jozwik-Krakowiak Ministry of Economy +48226935841 Development mg.gov.pl Department 40 Romania First Name Last Name Title Organization Email Phone Constantin Ciupagea State Counselor Government of Romania constantin.ciupagea@gov.ro +40213139404 Adrian Curaj State Counselor Government of Romania adrian.curaj@gov.ro +40723588698 Ministry of SMEs, Trade, Jozsef Csaka General Director Commerce and Liberal csaka.jozsef@mimmc.ro +40213352632 Professions National Authority for- Gheorghe Bala Director gbala@mct.ro +40213162977 Scientific Research Bucharest Chamber of Ancuta Conta General Director ancuta.conta@ccib.ro +40213190089 Commerce Deputy General Aurica Sereny Ministry of Economy & Finance asereny@minind.ro +40744535047 Director eGovernment Ministry of Communication/ Robert Buican robert.buican@mcti.ro +40317104020 Specialist Info & Technology Researcher, Institute for World Economy/ Razvan Voinescu razvanvoinescu@gmail.com +40213182455 Economist Government of Romania Senior PSD Arabela Aprahamian The World Bank aaprahamian@worldbank.org +40212010311 Specialist National Authority for Constantin Enachioiu Senior Counselor cenachioiu@mct.ro + 40213162977 Scientific Research Russia First Name Last Name Title Organization Email Phone Advisor to the Khanty Mansiysk Autonomous Sergei Shubin ShubinSV@admhmao.ru +83467192481 Governor Okrug Government International Centre for Irina Kuklina Executive Director Innovations for Science, kuklina@mniop.ru +74959817580 Technology and Education International Centre for Elena Vasilieva Deputy Director Innovations for Science, vasilieva@mniop.ru +74959817580 Technology and Education Federal Agency for Tatiana Budarina Deputy Head Management of Special rosoez@economy.gov.ru +74959853091 Economic Zones Deputy Head of Department of Industrial - Nailya Chernikova rosoez@economy.gov.ru +74959509041 the Department Production Zones Aleksei Prazdnitchnykh Partner Bauman Innovation aprazdn@compet.ru Ivan Bortnik Former Founder FASIE, Bortnik Foundation bortnik@asvt.ru, Serbia First Name Last Name Title Organization Email Phone Slobodan Ilic State Secretary Ministry of Finance silic@mfin.sr.gov.yu +381113642612 Assistant Minister, Mihailo Vesovic Ministry of Trade and Services mvesovic@mtu.sr.gov.yu +381113616247 International Cooperation Knowledge Economy Forum VII 41 Tajikistan First Name Last Name Title Organization Email Phone Ministry of Economic Shukhrat Saydulloev Chief Specialist Development and Trade of the Shuhrat-osce@mail.ru +992372233938 Republic of Tajikistan State Committee on Head of the Shukhratdzhon Rakhmatboev Investments and State shukhratzhon@rambler.ru +992927734317 Department Property Management Turkey First Name Last Name Title Organization Email Phone Head of Social Prime Ministry - State Kamil Ayanoglu Research ayanoglu@dpt.gov.tr +903122946409 Planning Organization Department Director General Prime Ministry - State Kemal Madenoglu of DG Social kmadenoglu@dpt.gov.tr +903122946510 Planning Organization Sectors &Coord. Industrial Development Bank Tuna Tospinar Economist tospinort@tskb.tr +902123345267 of Turkey KOSGEB-SME Development Emrah Gerceker SME Expert Emrah.Gerceker@kosgeb.gov.tr +903122670285/22 Organization The Union of Chambers and Sercan Gakir Assistant Expert Commodity Exchanges of serkan@tobb.org.tr +903124138313 Turkey Ukraine First Name Last Name Title Organization Email Phone Education +380444906671 Olena Bekh The World Bank obekh@worldbank.org Specialist +380444906672/73 Iryna Kriuchkova Deputy Minister Ministry of Economy of Ukraine kiv@me.gov.ua +380442531055 Deputy Director of Regulatory Liudmyla Bondarenko Ministry of Economy of Ukraine lbondarenko@me.gov.ua +380445211624 Policy Department Director of Social and Olexandr Savenko Humanitarian Ministry of Economy of Ukraine osavenko@me.gov.ua +380442857312 Development Department Director, Department of Cooperation with Olena Kucherenko Ministry of Economy of Ukraine kucherenko@mfert.gov.ua +380442724489 International Financial Organizations 42 Project Manager United Nations Development Nataliya Sitnikova nsitnikova@me.gov.ua +380442534370 of MCDG Project Programme State Committee of Ukraine First Deputy Head Andriy Gota for Regulatory Policy and bilyas@dkrp.gov.ua +380442858019 of SCURPE’s Entrepreneurship State Committee of Ukraine Senior Specialist, Anna Morozova for Regulatory Policy and bilyas@dkrp.gov.ua +380442858019 Strategy Planning Entrepreneurship Chief consultant, Investment & Innovation Secretariat of the President of Olena Bilous Development bilous14@ukr.net +380442556843 Ukraine and Projects Implementation Division Uzbekistan First Name Last Name Title Organization Email Phone Head of the Shukrat Ismailov Ministry of Economy shismoilov@mineconomy.uz +998712326296 Department Head of the Sarvar Abdullaev Ministry of Economy sabdullaev@mineconomy.uz +998712326482 Department Knowledge Economy Forum VII 43 ANNEX 3: LIST OF SPEAKERS KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY FORUM VII Technology Absorption by Innovative Small and Medium Enterprises Ancona, Italy, June 17-19, 2008 First Name Last Name Title Organization Nina Arnhold Senior Education Specialist ECSHD, World Bank Mauricio Frota Chair - Post-Graduate Metrology Program Catholic University Fritz Ohler Director of Operations, Austria Technopolis Group Institutional Management for Higher Jaana Puukka Analyst Education The French Agency for Innovation Gilbert Nicolaon Former Head (ANVAR) Scheele Henning Former Vice President KraussMaffei Navaretti Giorgio Barba Professor of Economics UniversitadegliStudidi Milano Marco Pacetti Rector UniversitaPolitecnicadelle Marche Alessandro Sterlacchini Professor of Economics UniversitaPolitecnicadelle Marche Salvatore Rossi General Director Bank of Italy Roberta Rabellotti Professor of Economics Universita del Piemonte Orientale Patrizio Bianchi Rector University of Ferrara Giuliano Calza Human Resources Organizational Development INDESIT Fabrizio Costa Director, Economic Dev. Dept Marche Region Giuseppe Serazzi Professor Politecnic of Milan Institute for Prospective Technological Studies and Lucio Picci European Commission Department of Economics ARTI of Bari Innovation Policies in a region with Gianfranco Viesti University of Bari intermediate development Sauro Longhi Professor of Engineering Faculty Universita Politecnica delle Marche Letizia Urbani Speaker Meccano Paolo Ratini Project Manager SPES Donato Iacobucci Professor of Industrial Economics Universita Politecnica delle Marche Aleksei Prazdnitchnykh Partner Bauman Innovation 44 ANNEX 3: LIST OF SPEAKERS KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY FORUM VII Technology Absorption by Innovative Small and Medium Enterprises Ancona, Italy, June 17-19, 2008 First Name Last Name Title Organization Ivan Bortnik Former Founder FASIE, Bortnik Foundation Albert Hu Professor of Economics Singapore University Bjorn Asheim Professor, Economic/ Georgraphy Lund University Christopher Duke Secretary-General Pascal International Observatory David Norris Team Leader CARDS 2006 John Roelofs Vice President PAC Group Lee Branstetter Associate Professor Carnegie Mellon University Alberto Rodriguez Lead Education Specialist, ECSHD ECSHD, World Bank Fernando Montes-Negret Director, ECSPF The World Bank Group Ted Ahlers Director, Strategy and Operations, ECA The World Bank Group Andrew Burns Lead Economist, DECPG The World Bank Group Itzhak Goldberg Advisor, Policy & Strategy, ECSPF The World Bank Group Natasha Kapil PSD Specialist, KEF Co-Team Leader The World Bank Group Tatiana Segal Analyst, KEF Co-Team Leader The World Bank Group Jean-Louis Racine PSD Specialist, ECSPF The World Bank Group John Gabriel Goddard Economist, ECSPF The World Bank Group Lalit Raina Sector Manager, ECSPF The World Bank Group Sylvie K. Bossoutrot Senior Operations Officer The World Bank Group Mamta Murthi Sector Manager The World Bank Group Irina Astrakhan Senior PSD Specialist The World Bank Group Knowledge Economy Forum VII 45 The World Bank 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433, USA Telephone: 1.202.473.1000 Facsimile : 1.202.477.6391 www.worldbank.org books@worldbank.org