Ranking National Innovation Systems According to their technical Efficiency

A multilevel and multistage efficiency evaluation of innovation systems: A multiobjective DEA approach

“…Contrary, in this study, Germany's and Switzerland's innovation systems have the highest overall efficiency scores. The high efficiency of these three countries may be also found in the studies of Cullmann et al (2011), Hollanders andCelikel-Esser (2007), Nasierowski and Arcelus (2003), Rousseau and Rousseau (1997) , and Matei and Aldea (2012) . Other previous research effort s justify the relatively low efficiency of Spain, Portugal, Italy, Austria, or countries considered as innovative, like Norway or Netherlands (see for example Matei & Aldea, 2012 ).…”

“…Starting with Nasierowski and Arcelus (2003) DEA has been successfully applied to measure the efficiency of National Innovation Systems (see for example Matei and Aldea (2012), Sharma and Thomas (2008) ). Some of these studies applied a second level econometric analysis to examine the effect of environmental factors to efficiency scores ( Afzal (2014), Cai (2011), Guan (2010), Cullmann, Schmidt-Ehmcke, andZloczysti (2011), Guan and Chen (2012), Nasierowski and Arcelus (2003) ).…”

“…Some of these studies applied a second level econometric analysis to examine the effect of environmental factors to efficiency scores ( Afzal (2014), Cai (2011), Guan (2010), Cullmann, Schmidt-Ehmcke, andZloczysti (2011), Guan and Chen (2012), Nasierowski and Arcelus (2003) ). Tobit has been mostly used while more recently Matei and Aldea (2012) and Afzal (2014) employed bootstrap for getting bias corrected estimations. Superefficiency that can produce complete country rankings has been also applied by Chen and Guan (2010), Guan and Chen (2012), Pan, Hung, and Lu (2010) ).…”

“…This is an indication that being innovative is often different than having an efficient transformation of innovation inputs to outputs (see also Arcelus, 2012 andMatei &Aldea, 2012 on comments on the relation of efficiency estimations and IUS-Innovation Union Scoreboard). This is further confirmed at regional level by ZabalaIturriagagoitia et al (2007) who find that contrary to what a composite indicator such as an Innovation Scoreboard could suggest, regions with fewer resources devoted to innovation achieve outstanding levels of efficiency and regions with consolidated innovation systems do not show efficiency levels commensurate with their expected competitiveness.…”

Social Innovation and Entrepreneurship

“…Governments should offer prizes for the development of social innovations, measure their effectiveness, and guarantee their acquisition. It is also important to measure the efficiency of the innovation process at regional and national level (Matei & Spircu, 2012). Thus, it is needed more research on effectiveness and efficiency of all social innovations in order to invest public and private funds wisely.…”