Regional Innovation Monitor

Transcription

1 Version: Final Date: 22 August 2011 Regional Innovation Monitor Regional Innovation Report (Danish Capital Region) To the European Commission Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General Directorate D Industrial Innovation and Mobility Industries Thomas Ebdrup, Project Manager Stig Nielsen, Analyst Lasse Nielsen, Research Assistant FORA

2 PREFACE The Regional Innovation Monitor (RIM) 1 is an initiative of the European Commission's Directorate General for Enterprise and Industry, which has the objective to describe and analyse innovation policy trends across EU regions. RIM analysis is based on methodologies developed in the context of the INNO-Policy Trendchart which covers innovation policies at national level as part of the PRO INNO Europe initiative. The overarching objective of this project is to enhance the competitiveness of European regions through increasing the effectiveness of their innovation policies and strategies. The specific objective of the RIM is to enhance the scope and quality of policy assessment by providing policy-makers, other innovation stakeholders with the analytical framework and tools for evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of regional policies and regional innovation systems. RIM covers EU-20 Member States: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. This means that RIM will not concentrate on Member States where the Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics NUTS 1 and 2 levels are identical with the entire country (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania), Malta which only has NUTS 3 regions, Slovenia which has a national innovation policy or Cyprus and Luxembourg which are countries without NUTS regions. The main aim of 50 regional reports is to provide a description and analysis of contemporary developments of regional innovation policy, taking into account the specific context of the region as well as general trends. All regional innovation reports are produced in a standardised way using a common methodological and conceptual framework, in order to allow for horizontal analysis, with a view to preparing the Annual EU Regional Innovation Monitor reports. European Commission official responsible for the project is Alberto Licciardello (Alberto.LICCIARDELLO@ec.europa.eu). The present report was prepared by FORA by a team consisting of Thomas Ebdrup (te@ebst.dk), Stig Nielsen (shn@ebst.dk) and Lasse Nielsen (Ino@ebst.dk). The contents and views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of the Member States or the European Commission. Copyright of the document belongs to the European Commission. Neither the European Commission, nor any person acting on its behalf, may be held responsible for the use to which information contained in this document may be put, or for any errors which, despite careful preparation and checking, may appear. 1

3 Table of Contents Executive Summary i 1. Main Trends and Challenges in the Regional Innovation System Recent trends in regional economic performance Recent trends in regional innovation performance Identified challenges 4 2. Innovation Policy Governance Degree of institutional autonomy Institutional-set up, co-ordination and implementation mechanisms Availability and use of policy intelligence tools Key challenges and opportunities Innovation Policy Instruments and Orientations The regional innovation policy mix Appraisal of regional innovation policies Good practice case: Accelerace Portfolio of innovation support measures The Danish Council for Technology and Innovation Towards smart specialisation policies Possible future orientations and opportunities 19 Regional Innovation Monitor

4 Appendices Appendix A Bibliography...20 Appendix B Stakeholders consulted Appendix C RIM Repository information...22 Appendix D Explanation of factors of Innovation Performance, Governance and Policy...23 Appendix E Statistical data...26 Appendix F RIM survey responses Figures Figure 1-1 Economic and innovation performance indicators for the Capital Region...2 Figure 2-1 Governance, policy, and innovation performance factors for the Capital Region Tables Table 3-1 Existing regional innovation support measures Regional Innovation Monitor

5 Executive Summary 1. Introduction: Main recent trends in the Regional Innovation System The Copenhagen metropolitan area the Capital Region is among the richest regions in Europe and is one of the leading regions with regards to innovation and economic performance. Compared to the euro zone, productivity level was around 103% in The region also scores well on many framework indicators for innovation. For instance, 40% of the population has a tertiary education (52% above EU27 average); higher education R&D expenditure is 64% above EU27 average; and finally, business R&D expenditure is as high as 4% of regional GDP. However, compared with other similar metropolitan regions for instance Stockholm, Helsinki or Amsterdam, the Capital Region is losing ground on important parameters such as growth in labour productivity and educational level. Most notably, the Capital Region experienced a decreasing growth in labour productivity over the last decade. This has caused the Capital Region to fall behind relatively on growth in GDP per capita to comparable regions like Stockholm and Helsinki. The development can be attributed to a low increase in total factor productivity. This seems to indicate that the innovation capacity of the Capital region is not performing as well as it could. Therefore, the main challenge for the Capital Region is to ensure that the good framework conditions for innovation manifest itself in a better innovation performance in the coming years. 2. Major innovation challenges and policy responses Challenge 1: Getting entrepreneurs to grow to become global companies Successful entrepreneurs are an important part of a dynamic and innovative economy. The Capital Region has many entrepreneurs, but few new firms are growing to become global firms with 250, 500 or 1,000 employees. The development of more high-growth start-ups with a global potential is a main focus area in the regional business development strategy, but the task of building a strong ecosystem for growth entrepreneurs might call for the introduction of new policy measures. One successful policy measure aimed at high growth entrepreneurs is Accelerace. Accelerace is a private internationally-focused business development programme for potential high-growth entrepreneurs and start-ups looking to increase their commercialisation success. The programme is an elite programme for the best Danish companies, and it is considered one of the best policy examples in Copenhagen within entrepreneurship. The introduction of more policy measures that are privately run and elite oriented could probably help meet the challenge for the region. Regional Innovation Monitor i

6 Challenge 2: Improving the knowledge diffusion from universities Knowledge diffusion is important in a knowledge intensive metropolitan area such as Copenhagen. However, the region is not top-performing, and there is a challenge in ensuring that the cooperation and knowledge diffusion between universities and the business sector is improved. The regional policymakers have a strong focus on improving knowledge diffusion in Copenhagen. More than 26m in regional development fund has been channelled into the area of innovation, knowledge sharing and knowledge building (close to 60% of all funds for regional business development). It has yet to be seen if the effort will result in better knowledge diffusion in the coming years, or if the introduction of new policy measures is needed. Such new measures could include a stronger competition between the universities in Copenhagen for obtaining the allocated funds. Challenge 3: Making sure the regions workforce has the competences to competitive on innovation Even though Copenhagen has a reasonably well-educated workforce, the Capital Region is falling behind other metropolitan regions such as Amsterdam, Stockholm and Helsinki. Therefore, the region must have a strong focus on attracting and retaining talent from abroad as well as ensuring that more people get a tertiary education. With the construction of the Oresund Bridge in 2000 to the neighbouring Swedish region of Skåne, there might be a potential in attracting talent and knowledge to Copenhagen from the Oresund region in order to spur innovation and growth in the Capital Region. However, no evaluation exits to determine if the potential in the integration of the two regions is fulfilled or if there is room for further improvements. 3. Innovation policy governance The Danish institutional setup for the development and implementation of regional innovation policies underwent a major reform in The new setup is probably unique in a European context and might serve as an inspiration for other countries as a way of ensuring an effective institutional setup for regional innovation policies. The reform created new national and regional forums where policymakers can discuss innovation policies with representatives from business, labour market and research (called growth forums); partnership agreements between the national government and the regional growth forums has been institutionalised in order to ensure alignment between national and regional priorities; and regular evaluations of regional progress have been formalised as a way of ensuring stronger policy learning between the Danish regions. After the reform, it is only the Growth Forum in Copenhagen the Capital Region Growth Forum that can launch regional innovation and business development initiatives in Copenhagen. The Capital Region Growth Forum is therefore the most important institution for developing and implementing innovation policy measures in Copenhagen. The Growth Forum brings together the region's key policymakers from industry, research, education, labour, municipalities and regional councils. Together they work to make the Capital Region one of Northern Europe's most attractive metropolises to live in and do business in. ii Regional Innovation Monitor

7 The Growth Forum is not itself implementing the different initiatives and projects which it launches. These are implemented by others, for example municipalities, research institutions or other independent legal entities. Almost all of the activities which the Growth Forum launches are co-financed with EU structural funds. In order to obtain co-financing from the EU structural funds, there needs to be at least 50% private co-financing for instance from business, universities, cluster organisations etc. This help to ensure the organisations or intermediaries who apply for funds from the Growth Forum engage in public-private partnerships and involve a wide range of stakeholders within the region in the different innovation support activities. 4. Conclusions: future actions and opportunities for innovation policy The Capital Region has all opportunities to create a top-european innovation system. The framework conditions for innovations are good, the institutional governance setup is favourable, and key stakeholders already work together in developing the innovation performance in the region within the Capital Region Growth Forum. There is a strong alignment with national priorities and a high level of co-financing with EU structural funds in the business development strategy formulated by the Growth Forum. However, these factors don t seem to materialise in a strong innovation performance as have been documented in a number of different studies in recent years. Although no thorough evaluation exits to give a final answer, a more coherent strategy for improving the innovation capacity in the region could probably have a positive impact on the innovation performance. Previously, many innovation projects have been small and spread out over many different areas as opposed to focusing on meeting the key challenges for the Copenhagen. A future strategy for developing the innovation performance in Copenhagen should focus on larger project within fewer key areas, as is the intention with the next five year strategy from the Capital Region Growth Forum. There might also be a room for policymakers in Copenhagen to take a more active ownership in the formulation and implementation of a coherent strategy for the economic development in the region. Today, the chairman of the Growth Forum is also the chair of the governing body of the Capital Region, the regional council, with a number of responsibilities such as healthcare for 1.6m people. Therefore, officials from local government working in the Growth Forum secretariat are left with a large responsibility for helping to formulate and implement a business development strategy. Regional Innovation Monitor iii

8 1. Main Trends and Challenges in the Regional Innovation System 1.1 Recent trends in regional economic performance Copenhagen is among the richest metropolitan regions in Europe. GDP per capita is 50,000, which is around 40% higher than the average for Denmark and 53% above the EU27 average, when using purchasing power parity. The Capital Region is the leading region in Denmark with regards to economic performance. The region generates about 40% of the Danish GDP, and 75% of the employment growth in Denmark over the last decade was created in the region (OECD, 2009). These numbers underline the importance of Copenhagen for the Danish economy. On the surface, Copenhagen has seen reasonable growth in recent years. From 2000 to 2006, the average annual growth in GDP was 2.9%. This is in line with the rest of Denmark and around the same level as EU27, although lower than other similar metropolitan regions like Stockholm, Helsinki and Amsterdam. Growth in GDP per capita in the Capital Region has mainly come from an increase in the employment rate. The employment rate was around 79.5% in 2008 with unemployment around half of the EU27 average (see figure 1). The unemployment rate decreased with 28% from 2000 to 2008 for the whole of Denmark, compared with 24% for EU27 (Statistics Denmark and own calculations). 2 These impressive numbers were in part the result of an overheating of the Danish economy in the period leading up to the financial crisis, especially due to historical high growth in real-estate prices which increased household s accumulated wealth and private spending. The high growth rates leading up to the financial crisis in therefore not necessarily caused by a strong innovation and productivity performance. Also, a relatively large part of the Copenhagen workforce is employed in the public sector (40%) due to the fact that Copenhagen is the administrative centre of Denmark. The share of employment in the public sector is quite high compared with other metropolitan areas in other small open economies such as Stockholm (36.5%), Amsterdam (33.5%) and Helsinki (32%). Although Copenhagen is a rich region with a relatively high labour productivity compared with the EU27, the picture is modified somewhat when comparing Copenhagen with other metropolitan regions with the same economic characteristics such as Amsterdam, Stockholm or Helsinki. Compared with these regions, the Danish Capital Region s economic performance is less remarkable, and the region is losing ground on important parameters such as labour productivity and educational level. While Copenhagen has seen an average annual growth in GDP at 2.9% from 2000 to 2006, Stockholm, Helsinki and Amsterdam have seen growth rates at 3.4%, 3.5% and 3.9% respectively. Today, the Capital Region has a high productivity level both compared to the euro zone around 103% in 2006 and compared to the rest of Denmark (around 20% above the Danish average). However, both Denmark and the Capital Region have 2 Due to changes in the collection of regional data for Denmark few Eurostat indicators are available for Copenhagen before Alternative data sources and/or national data have been used to describe development over time instead. Regional Innovation Monitor 1

9 experienced a decreasing growth in labour productivity over the last decade, 0.8% and 1% respectively (FORA, 2011). It is this low level of productivity growth in the last decade that has contributed to the Capital Region falling relatively behind on growth in GDP per capita to Amsterdam, Stockholm and Helsinki. The development can mainly be attributed to a very low increase in total factor productivity, as the contribution to growth in productivity from total factor productivity has been zero from 1997 to 2007 in Denmark (FORA, 2011). The productivity growth attributed to physical capital accumulation has been around average and human capital contribution only a bit below Amsterdam, Stockholm and Helsinki. This indicates that the innovation capacity of the Capital Region is not performing as well as it could. Figure 1-1 Economic and innovation performance indicators for the Capital Region Hovedstaden (DK01) Performance and change rela/ve to EU ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE INDICATORS GDP per capita (PPP) GDP per capita growth Unemployment rate Change in unemployment rate INNOVATION PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Tertiary education Government R&D expenditure Non R&D innovation exp. Patents per mln popoluation Business R&D expenditure Higher education R&D expenditure Marketing/organisational innovators Product/process innovators Source: Eurostat. 1.2 Recent trends in regional innovation performance The framework conditions for innovation are generally strong in the Capital Region, and the region scores high on many framework indicators. For instance, 40% of the population has a tertiary education (52% above EU27 average); 34% of the population is involved in life-long learning; higher education R&D expenditure is 64% above EU27 average; 80% of households have access to broadband; and finally, business R&D expenditure is as high as 4% of regional GDP with a sharp increase in recent years rising from 2.6% in 2000 to 4% in 2007 (IRIS Group and FORA, 2010). Innovation performance is hard to measure, but when looking at some of the available indicators it becomes clear that the region isn t performing as well as would be expected given the good framework conditions. For instance, Denmark scores around average in the Community Innovation Survey (CIS) on the share of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) that are innovative within product, process and marketing. However, the score is below EU average on the share of turnover attributable to innovations, both for products that are New to Market and New to Firm. This indicates that the SMEs in Copenhagen aren t fully capitalising on their innovations, whether for internal reasons or external factors (e.g. intensity of competition, demand conditions) resulting in a low innovation performance in the region. 2 Regional Innovation Monitor

10 The picture is more positive when looking at the level of patents. The number of patent applications per million inhabitants in Copenhagen is 342 which is about 200% higher than the EU27 average (Statistics Denmark, Own calculation). However, Copenhagen is not performing as well as the best performing regions in Germany, for example Stuttgart (646) or Oberbayern (561), although Copenhagen is performing a little bit better than Stockholm (319). There is some evidence that the universities in the Capital Region are carrying out high quality research, with a high number of research papers and a high number of citations per paper (FORA, 2011). However, the research is not necessarily meeting the needs of the business community as the business sectors co-funding of public research is as low as 2.5% in Denmark compared to 5% in Sweden and 9% in Finland. This indicates that Copenhagen has a challenge with knowledge diffusion from universities to the business community. Furthermore, the growth in the share of the workforce with a tertiary education has stagnated during the last 4-5 years, and Copenhagen has lost some of its lead in the quality of the workforce compared to similar metropolitan regions. From 2005 to 2009, the share of the regions workforce with a tertiary education grew from 45% to 46% in Copenhagen while Stockholm and Helsinki in comparison grew from 39% to 44% and from 41% to 44% respectively. This development together with a low completion rates in higher education and a high completion age can increase the pressure on the market for qualified labour in the future. New companies are important for both productivity and job creation, especially in an innovative and knowledge intensive economy such as the Capital Region. Copenhagen is home to many entrepreneurs. The start-up rate was as high as 11.4% in 2007 (corresponding to 9,057 new companies). This is at level with the best regions in Europe and USA (Danish Enterprise and Construction Authority, 2009). The high start-up rate reflects the fact that it s very easy to start a business in Denmark due to a strong political focus in the last 10 years. Over the past decade there has been a growing acknowledgement among Danish policymakers that entrepreneurship plays a key role in innovative societies, and that entrepreneurship is an important driver of wealth creation and economic recovery (FORA, 2010). Policy measures include reduction in the time and cost of starting a business, increase in risk capital, awareness rising campaigns and the establishment of public funded business development centres. In order to boost productivity and job creation it is important that new companies are growing. The Capital Region is home to 40% of the Danish high-growth start-ups which had a growth in employment or turnover at more than 20% in a three year period. This equals 141 companies in Typically, these companies grow from around employees and therefore remain relatively small. Even though Copenhagen is home to a high share of the Danish high-growth start-ups, the actual number of 141 companies is low in international perspective (Danish Enterprise and Construction Authority, 2009). The number is even lower when comparing the level of start-ups in Copenhagen that grow into a global business with 250, 500 or 1000 employees within the first 10 years of existence with the best regions in the USA. This has important implications for job creation and innovation performance in the region. Recent studies show that companies younger than 10 years are responsible for almost 25% of the employment in the USA compared to less than 10% in Denmark. The large difference in job creation from new companies in the two countries has important implications for the overall level of productivity if new companies have a higher productivity than established companies which would seem reasonable (FORA, 2011). Regional Innovation Monitor 3

11 A number of studies indicate that the reason for the low level of new high-growth companies is a lack of a strong entrepreneurship ecosystem in Copenhagen that allows the entrepreneurs to get access to the right knowledge, networks and capital to successful scale up a new company. There is a growing political focus on the need to develop a stronger ecosystem for high-growth entrepreneurship which will probably result in new policy initiatives in the coming years (Danish Enterprise and Construction Authority, 2010). Overall, Copenhagen has stronger framework conditions for innovation than is the case in most other European countries for instance high R&D expenditures, a strong education level, and good conditions for starting a new business. In the last decade there has been a strong political focus on keeping Denmark in front in all three areas at a national level. This has especially been achieved through the national Danish Globalisation Strategy which link pension reform with increased spending on education, research, innovation and entrepreneurship. 3 However, the improvement in framework conditions for innovation seems to have happened without a corresponding improvement in innovation performance as discussed in the previous section. 1.3 Identified challenges The main challenge for the Capital Region is to ensure that the good framework conditions for innovation manifest itself in a better innovation performance. Better innovation performance is an important part in increasing growth in total factor productivity and thereby labour productivity, where the region has been lagging behind in recent years. Given global competition and pressure on prices, improving labour productivity will probably be an important factor in assuring the future prosperity of the region. The missing correlation between good framework conditions and performance is probably affected by a number of factors. Recent studies from a number of bodies such as the Danish Economic Council, the Prime Ministers National Growth Forum, the Danish Ministry of Economics and Business Affairs as well as independent research institutions have all documented and discussed the Danish productivity and innovation challenge. According to the studies, key elements in meeting the challenge are a higher number of young people getting a territorial education, a stronger competition in local industries, the development of a private ecosystem for high-growth entrepreneurs, a change in the higher educational system towards better incentives for quality and relevance in education and research, and finally a reform of the Danish innovation policy towards fewer and larger innovation projects in strategic areas. Addressing these challenges will most likely turn the strong framework conditions for innovation into a high innovation performance. In order to succeed, three key challenges have to be addressed in the coming years: 1. Getting the regions entrepreneurs to grow to become global leaders. The Capital Region has many entrepreneurs, but the new firms are not growing to become large, global firms with 250, 500 or 1,000 employees. The challenge is finding new ways of giving entrepreneurs access to the right competence and support to upscale their enterprises into a global business. This can be achieved by developing an entrepreneurship ecosystem as is seen in the best regions in USA. 3 It should be noted that the available data for comparing the development in framework conditions in Copenhagen with the rest of Europe is somewhat limited due to limited data availability before Regional Innovation Monitor

12 2. Improving the knowledge diffusion from universities to the enterprises in the region. There is some evidence that knowledge diffusion isn t functioning optimally in the region. The region has a challenge in making sure that the cooperation between the universities and the business sector is improved so the universities create and spread knowledge that has relevance for businesses and the surrounding society. Finland and Sweden might act as an inspiration for the region in this respect. 3. Making sure the regions workforce has the right competences to competitive on innovation. The region has a challenge in making sure that there is enough qualified labour which matches the business demand for skills. Improved labour supply would help combat wage inflation and ease pressure on employers in what is already a high-wage economy. This means that the region must focus on attracting and retaining talent as well as making sure that more people get a tertiary education and that the share of the workforce with only a basic education is brought down in the coming years. Regional Innovation Monitor 5

13 2. Innovation Policy Governance 2.1 Degree of institutional autonomy In Denmark, regional innovation policies are the responsibility of the regional authorities within the Danish regions. The governing bodies of the regions are the regional councils which are directly elected for four-year periods. The regional councils cannot impose taxes but is financed through a national grant. Regional innovation support activities in Copenhagen are financed through this national grant (75%) together with a small grant from the municipalities within the Capital Region (25%). The regional authorities have full autonomy in applying the funds to innovation support activities. The Danish institutional setup for the development and implementation of regional innovation policies underwent a major reform in The new setup is probably unique in a European context and might serve as an inspiration for other countries as a way of ensuring an effective institutional setup for regional innovation policies. The reform created a new regional forum in each of the Danish regions where policymakers can discuss innovation policies with representatives from business, labour market and research (called growth forums); partnership agreements between the national government and the regional growth forums has been institutionalised in order to ensure alignment between national and regional priorities; and regular evaluations of regional progress have been formalised by the national government as a way of ensuring stronger policy learning between the Danish regions. After the reform, the task of business development has been delegated from the regional council in Copenhagen to an independent body called the Capital Region Growth Forum. The regional council in Copenhagen can no longer initiate innovation support activities which have not been approved by the Growth Forum. The Growth Forum brings together the region's key policymakers from industry, research, education, labour, municipalities and regional councils. Together they work to make the Capital Region one of Northern Europe's most attractive metropolises to live in and do business in. The head of the regional council is the chairman of the Capital Region Growth Forum, and staff working within the Capital Region authorities act as secretary for the Growth Forum. In the new setup, the Growth Forum is responsible for innovation policies in the Capital Region while the national government is responsible for improving the general business framework conditions in Denmark. The legal framework for innovation policies in the Capital Region is the law on business advancement. The law sets the legal framework for business development policies and specifies which roles and tasks the different actors within the region have. It also specifies how the Growth Forum should be organised, and in what areas the Growth Forum can initiate innovation support activities. For instance, it is not possible to use the national grant to initiate infrastructure projects. Within this legal framework, the Capital Region Growth Forum has a relatively high level of autonomy to create good framework conditions for innovation and business development in Copenhagen. For instance, the Growth Forum has full autonomy in designing a long-term strategy for business development in the Capital Region which sets the direction for innovation policies in the region, and there are few constrains when the Growth Forum launch innovation support activities to carry out the strategy. The governance and financing of universities and research institutes are not part of the responsibilities of the regional authority in Denmark. Therefore, the Capital Region Growth Forum has no formal authority regarding the funding of science and technology. However, the regional authorities and the universities have a strong 6 Regional Innovation Monitor

14 collaboration on specific initiatives approved by the Growth Forum such as programmes to increase the number of spin-offs from universities in the region. 2.2 Institutional-set up, co-ordination and implementation mechanisms Following the reform in 2007, the most important institution for developing the innovation performance in Copenhagen is the Capital Region Growth Forum. The 20 members of the Growth Forum meet six times a year. At its meeting the Growth Forum decides what innovation support activities should be supported by the national grant for regional innovation policies. A key task for the Growth Forum is to design a long term strategy for business development in the Capital Region. The strategy sets the course for the business and innovation development within the region for a five-year period. The main focus in the present strategy is the development of stronger clusters (for instance by supporting cluster organisations within cleantech or medico, two of the priorities clusters), more growth entrepreneurs (for instance through support to entrepreneurship counselling) and a continuous development of the workforce through a number of different training and educational programmes. The Growth Forum is in the process of drafting a new five year strategy. It is the ambition of the Growth Forum that the new strategy will be more strategic by identifying a smaller number of key priority areas where the innovation support activities will be concentrated. It is hoped that this more targeted strategy might be more effective at transforming the innovative performance of the region as compared with previous approaches which saw a large number of smaller support activities in a number of different areas. The new strategy will continue to have the special challenges and opportunities in the region as its point of departure. One of the goals with the reform in 2007 was to ensure a stronger co-ordination between regional innovation strategies and the broader national strategy within business, innovation and education from 2006 called the Danish Globalisation Strategy. Therefore, a yearly partnership agreement has been created between the Growth Forum and the national government (the Ministry of Economics and Business Affairs). The partnership agreements which are public available commit the Growth Forum and the national government about what goals the two parties will work together on achieving the following year. For instance, the partnership agreement from 2010 states that the Growth Forum and the government will work jointly on developing the workforce e.g. by attracting foreign labour to Copenhagen and reducing education drop-out by identifying best practices in the region. The Growth Forum then commits itself to support activities that will help meet the goals when it allocates funds for business development the following year such as funds to international schools with children of foreign workers or getting the research institutions in the region to share best practice. In reality, the partnerships agreements are given different levels of priority within the five Danish regions, and some regions use the agreements more actively than others. In Copenhagen, the agreements are kept in somewhat general terms with broad focus areas which might indicate a somewhat lower priority in the Capital Region compared to some of the other Danish regions. It is important that the Capital Region Growth Forum continuously work to ensure the highest possible outcome from the partnership agreements as they potentially can be a way to influence national policymakers. The partnerships agreements for each of the five Danish regions are evaluated yearly in a review of the progress made by each region in the targets set out in the respective partnership agreement. As is the case with the some of agreements, the evaluation is Regional Innovation Monitor 7

15 kept in somewhat general terms (for instance the overall level of start-ups in Copenhagen) as opposed to more detailed evaluations of the different support activities in each region. The Capital Region Growth Forum itself doesn t implement the innovation support activities which it allocates funds for. Instead, the Growth Forum decides on the allocation of funds for different organisations or intermediaries, for example municipalities, universities, cluster organisations, entrepreneurship centres, research institutions or other independent legal entities which then run the actual activities and projects. The Growth Forum in Copenhagen has supported a large number of projects since its creation four years ago. A number of recent flagship initiatives are discussed in detail below in section four together with the innovation policy instruments and orientations. In 2009, the Growth Forum initiated 10 new projects within the area of innovation for a total sum of 19m. This equals close to 50% of the total investments in Other investments include human resources (19% of total investments), entrepreneurship (13% of total investments), and the use of new technology (10% of total investments). Almost all of the activities which the Growth Forum launches are co-financed with EU structural funds. In order to obtain co-financing from the EU structural funds, there needs to be at least 50% private co-financing for instance from business, municipalities, universities, cluster organisations etc. This help to ensure the organisations or intermediaries who apply for funds from the Growth Forum engage in public-private partnerships and involve a wide range of stakeholders within the region in the different innovation support activities. The co-ordination between these stakeholders has developed positively in Copenhagen in recent years. For instance, the use of public private partnerships is an integrated part of most programs and policy measures today. The various stakeholders also engage in a number of informal interactions such as conferences, workshops etc. in relation to the different innovation support activities. As the 20 members of the Growth Forum itself are key stakeholders from industry, research, education, labour, municipalities and regional councils within the Capital Region the meetings in the Growth Forum also help to ensure a high level of co-ordination in the implementation of support activities. The Growth Forum is serviced by a secretariat consisting of people working within the regional government in the administrative unit of the Capital Region. The secretariat prepare the papers for Growth Forum meetings, help draft the innovation strategy based on the discussions in the Growth Forum, have the dialogue with the intermediaries about the different programmes, and engage in the work with the Ministry of Economics and Business Affairs about the partnership agreement and the evaluation of the progress made in the region within innovation and business development. The secretary is therefore very important in the implementation of the innovation support activities. The new institutional setup has now been in effect for four years and is generally considered a success. The institutional-set up and the implementation mechanisms seems to result in a high level of co-ordination, both between the national government and the regional authorities at a strategic level, and between the many stakeholders within the Capital Region with regard to the actual programmes and activities. One lesson has been that it is important to have highly skilled people working in the secretary for the Growth Forum as the secretary plays a key role in the implementation of the innovation support activities. Therefore, a practical academy has recently been established with the mission of training the staff working in the Growth Forum secretaries in the five Danish regions, known as Reg-X. 8 Regional Innovation Monitor

16 Furthermore, the level of inter-regional collaboration on specific projects and programmes can possibly also be improved. Recently, the Capital Region and the neighbouring region of Zealand have begun working together projects with cofinancing from both the Capital Region Growth Forum and the Zealand Region Growth Forum. This inter-regional collaboration could probably also be expanded to Skåne, the neighbouring Swedish region, especially after the construction of the Oresund Bridge which have linked the two regions closely together. Today, a large number of people cross the bridge daily to work, study and live, and the two regions share a number of challenges and opportunities. Policymakers from the two regions have therefore begun regular meetings about how to integrate the regions even more in the coming years. 2.3 Availability and use of policy intelligence tools Figure 2-1 profiles the Capital Region on a series of innovation governance factors. The figure shows that the Capital Region has a high degree of autonomy as regards to the governance of innovation policy making and delivery, when compared with the situation in the EU more generally. This corresponds with the high level of autonomy for the Capital Region Growth Forum in initiating and financing innovation support activities. Similarly, the subjective analyses show a very much better than average performance on innovation coordination, reflecting the success of the various mechanisms which were introduced with the reform in Furthermore, policy makers in the region indicate that there is a strong top-down approach to the design of regional innovation policies. This corresponds with the fact that the innovation support activities are financed through a national grant and that policy priorities are determined in negotiation with the national government. It might also reflect the fact that most projects in the region are initiated and financially supported by the Capital Region Growth Forum and in correspondence with the overarching business development strategy for the region as opposed to a more bottom-up or ad hoc approach. The figure also shows a strong focus on demand and service innovation policies together with research policies. This corresponds to the priorities outlined in the strategy for innovation and business development in the region. Finally, figure 2-1 shows that technological innovation, innovative entrepreneurship, and public knowledge are perceived as the most important innovation performance factors. Interviews with policy makers in the region indicate that in the coming years there will most likely be an extension towards a stronger focus on non-technological innovation such as user driven innovation and welfare innovation through the use of service design implying fewer resources devoted to technological innovation. Regional Innovation Monitor 9

17 Figure 2-1 Governance, policy, and innovation performance factors for the Capital Region Source: RIM survey. The most important evaluation of the progress made in Copenhagen with respect to innovation and business development is the yearly review made by the Ministry of Economics and Business Affairs in collaboration with the Capital Region Growth Forum. Although kept in somewhat general terms, the evaluation maps the development in the innovation performance of the region. Furthermore, an evaluation has been carried out of the work done by the Growth Forum in the period from 2006 to 2009 (Capital Region Growth Forum, 2009). Besides highlighting the need for a more focused business development strategy, the evaluation also points at the need for improving the evaluation of the overall regional innovation strategy. There is especially a need for analysing the achieved results and effects as well as the development of better indicators and targets in order to document the results. The various projects initiated by the Growth Forum that are co-financed with funding from the EU structural funds have a mandatory evaluation made. The evaluations are of somewhat different quality and extent, from one to another. This probably reflects the different sizes of the various projects that have been initiated in the region. Even though there is no stringent or strategic use of the different evaluations, they do provide a point of departure for policy learning about the outcome of the different projects. The secretary for the Capital Region Growth Forum is expressing a strong desire for a more strategic use of evaluations and other evidence-based methods in the coming years. Finally, in order to help inform the discussions in the Growth Forum, a number of analyses have been made by private consultants about the clusters in Copenhagen. The studies map the city s existing clusters, their strengths, their position in the 10 Regional Innovation Monitor

18 increasingly globalising value system of clusters, and potential synergies across clusters (FORA, 2007). These studies, together with ongoing research projects together with other metropolitan areas in the surrounding area, help to provide input for the Growth Forum innovation strategy. 2.4 Key challenges and opportunities The governance setup in Denmark after the reform in 2007 provides potentially a very strong framework for effective regional innovation policies in the Capital Region. The most import challenge for the policymakers in the region is now to ensure that the potential in the reform is fulfilled. The Capital Region has all opportunities to create a top-european innovation system. The framework conditions for innovations are good, the institutional governance setup is favourable, and key stakeholders already work together in developing the innovation performance in the region within the Capital Region Growth Forum. There is a strong alignment with national priorities and a high level of co-financing with EU structural funds in the business development strategy formulated by the Growth Forum. However, these factors don t seem to materialise in a strong innovation performance as have been documented in a number of different studies in recent years. Key challenges in the coming years will be to get the regions entrepreneurs to grow into global leaders, improve the knowledge diffusion from universities to the enterprises in the region, and to make sure the regions workforce has the right competences to competitive on innovation. Although no thorough evaluation exits to give a final answer, a more coherent strategy for improving the innovation capacity in the region could probably have a positive impact on the innovation performance. Previously, many innovation projects have been small and spread out over many different areas as opposed to focusing on meeting the key challenges. A future strategy for developing the innovation performance in Copenhagen should focus on larger project within fewer key areas, as is the intention with the next five year strategy from the Capital Region Growth Forum. There might also be a room for policymakers in Copenhagen to take a more active ownership in the formulation and implementation of a coherent strategy for the economic development in the region. Today, the chairman of the Growth Forum is also the chair of the governing body of the Capital Region, the regional council, with a number of responsibilities such as healthcare for 1.6m people. Therefore, officials from local government working in the Growth Forum secretariat are left with a large responsibility for helping to formulate and implement a business development strategy. Finally, it is important that the Growth Forum works on making the partnership agreements with the national government as specific as possible, and that the yearly evaluation of the progress made in the region is as concrete as possible. Regional Innovation Monitor 11

19 3. Innovation Policy Instruments and Orientations 3.1 The regional innovation policy mix The vision for the Capital Region Growth Forum is that the Capital Region in the year 2015 is Northern Europe's most attractive metropolis to live, study and operate a business in, as well as to visit. The Growth Forum has drawn up a business development strategy to promote economic and employment growth. The strategy contains the fundamental principles for future efforts to promote business in the region and highlights seven action areas: Competency Clusters; New Business; Development of the Metropolitan Region; Research and Innovation; Developing the Labour Market at all levels; Marketing, Events, Culture and Values; Oresund and the International Vision (Capital Region Growth Forum, 2010). For each action areas the Growth Forum for the Capital Region has made initiatives, in total 33, to make sure that there is action behind the words. One key focus area is to develop human resources at all levels in the region. Talents should be strengthened in all disciplines and industry sectors, and managers must increasingly be good to recover the human resources and raising knowledge levels in the private sector and public institutions. The policy mix within innovation in the region includes a number of different instruments for instance public-private partnerships, open innovation, intelligent demand and smart regulation. The hot trends are particular developing innovation within new environmental solutions and healthcare. The region therefore uses a number of different policy instruments and orientations in its policy mix. In particular, the region has a strong focus on exploiting the potential in triple helix partnerships where private companies and universities are involved in the innovation policy. Therefore, policymakers in Copenhagen always aim at involving private partners or research institutions in their projects. One example of this approach is the flagship initiative The Copenhagen Cleantech Cluster. The initiatives brings together a number of different partners within cleantech including a number of research institutions (The University of Copenhagen, The Technical University of Denmark, and Symbion, a Danish science park), leading companies (the national energy company Dong, a leading Danish company in biotech innovation called Novozymes, and Siemens), and a number of public institutions (municipalities, The Capital Region of Denmark, EU and Copenhagen Capacity, the Danish Capital Region s official inward investment agency). There are also a number of examples of centres being established with the task of promoting innovation in healthcare, ICT and cleantech with a similar approach. In the interviews for this report, policymakers underlined the importance placed upon research and technologies and promote and sustain the creation and growth of innovative enterprises as the basis for stronger economic development. Measures supporting human resources are to a lesser degree prioritised while measures supporting horizontal research and innovation policies as well as market and innovation culture are not a real focus in the region. This focus seems to have been consistent in a number of years. The Capital Region has approximately 25m available for business development per year in the period 2010 to Out of these 9m comes from the EU structural funds. 12 Regional Innovation Monitor

20 According to policymakers in the region, the three most important regional innovation measures for Copenhagen are the following: 1. Accelerace 2. Copenhagen Cleantech Cluster 3. The Healthcare Innovation Centre The first two programmes are strategic schemes with quite substantial budgets, while the latter is viewed as important because the regional policymakers see great potential in encouraging improving innovation in healthcare. 1. Accelerace The Accelerace initiative aims to spur growth in potential high-growth start-ups and other promising small businesses. Concrete activities include training with leading business development experts, access to international partners and business strategy formulation and execution. The measure is managed by a private consortium located at a science park called Symbion. Accelerace is one of the flagship initiatives in the Capital Region, with its commitment to improving the framework conditions for high growth start-ups and other companies. The total budget is 13.3m from Copenhagen Cleantech Cluster Copenhagen Cleantech Cluster is a cluster organisation aimed at developing the cleantech Cluster in the Capital Region. It provides an overview of and access to cleantech sector networks, cooperation between member companies, investment opportunities, workshops, seminars, R&D projects, test and demonstration, partners and business opportunities. The mission is to facilitate growth, competitiveness and innovation to cleantech players in Copenhagen, and to closely cooperate with other leading cleantech cluster around the world. The goal is to help promote the best business conditions in Denmark and to develop a cluster that is among the leaders in the world. To reach the goal a number of specific activities have been selected; Knowledge, Test & Demonstration, Matchmaking, Innovation & Entrepreneurship and Visibility. The Copenhagen Cleantech Cluster is managed by a consortium of different partners from both the public and private sector as well as knowledge institutions. The total budget is 19.3m over a four year period. 3. Healthcare innovation centre The Healthcare Innovation Centre is a strategic initiative to improve quality and efficiency in the healthcare service. The measure supports several units across the region s hospitals, and exists to help expand and disseminate the innovation work in the region s 14 hospital units comprising over 40,000 employees. The focus is on employees and patients in order to help focus innovation efforts where improvements are urgently needed. Central to the approach is the involvement of employees, patients, designers and the business community in the development projects, which address any or all types of innovation from new delivery models, to new services or medical devices, all motivated by an ambition to improve service quality and productivity while maintaining or improving health outcomes. Although the budget is relatively low, the region s policymakers sees great potential in the project as a way to improve rates of innovation in the healthcare sector, helping hospitals meet the demands on better and more effective treatment of patients at the same time as a lack of qualified labour. The total budget is 1.6m. Table 3-1 below outlines the Growth Forum policy measure in the Capital Region. Regional Innovation Monitor 13

21 Table 3-1 Existing regional innovation support measures Title Duration Policy priorities Budget Organisation responsible More information Growth Forum Initiatives (Capital region) Innovation strategies Strategic Research policies Support to innovative start ups incl. Gazelles 25m Capital Region Growth Forum 14 Regional Innovation Monitor

22 3.2 Appraisal of regional innovation policies The effectiveness of the regional policy mix has not yet been thoroughly evaluated, although the effectiveness of the individual projects are being monitored as they are obliged to deliver a yearly report to the Capital Region Growth Forum secretariat on what has been achieved in the last year. Instead, the appraisal of the regional innovation policies is achieved through discussions with stakeholders, workshops, seminars etc. initiated by the Growth Forum secretariat, and the different evaluations on the innovations performance mentioned above in section 3.3. The Growth Forum secretariat has indicated that it is well aware of the need to improve and systemise the use of evaluations regarding the regional policy mix. Therefore, work is currently being done on developing indicators, which should help the region to get a better understanding as regards the effectiveness of the policy mix. A tool for improving the regional innovation policy is the yearly evaluation of the partnership agreement between the government and the Capital Region Growth Forum. The main aim of the agreement is to make sure that the national and the regional business development policies correspond closely. Although the intentions in the evaluation of the agreements are good there is still considerable room for improvement. It is very positive that the agreement helps to spur synergies between the national and the regional innovation policy, and that they help to build a shared understanding of challenges and opportunities. However, the agreement could be improved for example by having more binding targets and a stronger focus on the effect of innovation supporting activities in future evaluations. One external event that has changes the policy mix is the decision to spend 5.2b in the period from 2009 to 2018 building and improving the hospitals in the Danish regions. Approximately 1.7b of the amount is expected to be used in the Capital Region. The construction of a number of new and more innovative hospitals has helped boost a strong focus on the possibilities within health care innovation for instance with the construction of the Healthcare innovation centre in Copenhagen. Supporting innovation within the healthcare area is important because it can enable the region to meet increasing demand with fewer human resources, a challenge that is expected to take effect over the coming years as ongoing demographic developments will accelerate further. It is not clear if the current policy mix will be adequate given the challenges and opportunities facing the region. The challenges identified in section one seems to indicate that a stronger focus is needed on improving knowledge diffusion from the universities within the region. The task of building a strong ecosystem for growth entrepreneurs also calls for new measures, as does the need for ensuring the workforce in the region has the right competences that the enterprises in the region demand. It has to be seen how the new five year innovation strategy from the Capital Region Growth Forum will change the existing policy mix towards meeting the challenges facing the region in the absence of a systematic use of evaluations regarding the regional policy mix. The budget allocation to different policy areas in the region can also give a hint of whether the existing policy mix is focused on meeting the challenges facing the region. The Capital Region has until 2010 given approval to projects for a total amount of approximately 44m. More than 26m is given to the action area innovation, knowledge sharing and knowledge building. Furthermore, 75% of the 26m given are given to projects concerning interaction on innovation which is described as a major challenge in section one. Regional Innovation Monitor 15

23 In conclusion it is not clear if the regional innovation policy mix is adequate to meet the challenges facing the Capital Region. More attention should be given to evaluate the outcomes and impacts of the current policy mix before a clear answer is possible. 3.3 Good practice case: Accelerace Accelerace is a fast action, internationally-focused business development programme for potential high-growth entrepreneurs and start-ups looking to increase their commercialisation success. The programme is an elite programme for the best Danish companies with up to 30 employees with the goal of helping to develop a Danish entrepreneurship ecosystem. It provides action-learning and concrete tools to entrepreneurs in order to gather insight into customers, market and competitors and help them develop a concrete and realistic go-to-market strategy enabling them to meet with investors, sign up partners or sell. The programme consists of different elements, including five 2-day thematic camps delivered by international experts, a CEO-in-residence who works with the company one day a week, and access to an international network of industry and technology experts that can provide insight in to markets, customers and competitors. The lead partner for Accelerace is Symbion, a science park with a long experience in working with start-up companies which has been used to design the Accelerace programme. The programme differs from traditional entrepreneurship training programmes in attracting leading international experts to work with the start-up companies as opposed to counselling from public employees without personal experience in growing a business; in its strong elite and global oriented focus as opposed to most other entrepreneurship counselling programmes in Copenhagen; and finally in its focus on building a private ecosystem for high growth entrepreneurs unlike most other programmes in the Capital Region aimed at developing a public run entrepreneurships infrastructure. Based on the novelty of the programme it has managed to attract national funding beside the funding from the Capital Region Growth Forum and the EU structural fund. Other stakeholders are The IT University of Copenhagen, The University of Copenhagen, The Technical University of Denmark and The Danish ICT and Electronics Federation to mention a few. The programme runs from 2009 to 2013 and is now two years into its development and implementation. It is therefore too early to judge the success of the programme, but preliminary indicators such as the level of private capital raised by the participating companies seems to indicate a positive impact. Accelerace has also had positive feedback from the participating companies as 78% of these would like to participate again and 79% would recommend the programme to other companies. Due to the success of the programme other Danish regions are in process of establishing similar programmes, encouraged by the national government. 3.4 Portfolio of innovation support measures In the Capital Region, there is a strong focus on coordinating the use of the EU structural funds, national funds and regional fund. The region is able to use their own funds to either co-finance projects or to launch initiatives complementing the national or EU funding. This help to ensure a broad portfolio of innovation support measures. The EU Structural Funds are very important in a regional business development context. As mentioned above, the Capital Region has approximately 25m available for business development per year in the period 2010 to 2013, where approximately 9m a year comes from the EU Structural Funds. 16 Regional Innovation Monitor

24 Policymakers in the Capital Region also consider national funding very important. It is often the case that initiatives launched by the region are financed partly by the region itself and partly by some of the national initiatives mentioned below, which are all open to applications from the regional authorities. It is difficult to judge the relative importance of the different sources of funding as the regional, national and EU funding support each other and is often mixed. The funds are also often supplemented with funding from the various partners, intermediaries and research institutions in Copenhagen. This is probably one of the strength of the Danish institutional setup. Furthermore, the regional level in Denmark doesn t seem to find it hard to influence the national level after the public sector reform in 2007 probably also due to fact that Denmark is a small country with a responsive government. In the last decade, Denmark s national policy has had a strong focus on improving the general framework conditions for business and innovation. This focus will automatically benefit the companies located in the Capital Region. There are a number of relevant measures at a national level that fund regional-level innovation activities. The most important for the Capital Region are the following: 1. The Danish PWT Foundation Investments in Public Welfare Technology 2. The Business Innovation Fund Regional Innovation Monitor 17

25 4. The Danish Council for Technology and Innovation 1. The Danish PWT Foundation Investments in Public Welfare Technology The Danish government has allocated approximately 400m in the period 2009 to 2015 to a dedicated programme directed towards developing and improving public sector services through the implementation of labour-saving technologies and more efficient working processes. Obviously, this is many times the budget for the Healthcare innovation centre in Copenhagen. 2. The Business Innovation Fund The Business Innovation Fund is an official government initiative established in autumn 2009 under the Danish Ministry of Economic and Business Affairs. About 100m has been allocated to the fund for the period Private enterprises operating within green business or welfare technology can apply for grants within three focus areas: innovation, market maturation and change-over. As Copenhagen is home to a large number of companies working within these areas, a relatively large proportion of the funds can be expected to go companies located in the Capital Region. The Business Innovation Fund provides financial support to large, cross-functional innovation projects within green business and welfare. The support will mainly be granted to projects based on user-driven innovation. The aim is to develop innovative commercial products and services that can meet the increasing global demand for green solutions and welfare as well as generate growth and employment in Denmark. 3. The Danish Council for Technology and Innovation The objectives of the Danish Council for Technology and Innovation are to promote collaboration and dissemination of knowledge between researchers, research and educational institutions, advanced technology groups, knowledge institutions and enterprises. The council also aims at promoting innovation, development, diffusion, use and commercialization of new research and technology, and knowledge of organizations and markets. 4.1 Towards smart specialisation policies The concept of smart specialisation has been growing in importance in the Capital Region for a number of years. According to the interviewed policymakers, the concept had its origin from the cluster-like studies with the Ministry of Business from the mid 1990s and forward. Since then the Capital Region has gradually been paying more and more attention to smart specialisation, and the concept now lies at the centre of the regional development strategies from the Capital Region Growth Forum. This is the opposite development compared to the national level where the concept has been losing importance in the last decade. Instead, the focus at the national level has been on improving the general framework conditions for growth such as reducing the administrative burdens and lowering taxes. Today, smart specialisation is viewed as an important tool in enhancing the innovation capacity in the Capital Region. In particular, the region has worked to identify its areas of specialisation in order to develop these strengths further. In the preparation of the regional development strategy a number of workshops were held with the participation of a number of different stakeholders, and a series of studies was initialised with the aim of identifying strengths and weaknesses in the region. This helped to inform the regional policymakers about which areas to focus on. 18 Regional Innovation Monitor

26 Some of the most important areas of specialisation to boost economic growth and prosperity in The Capital Region are cleantech; medical devices; biotechnology; ICT; and healthcare technology. The Capital Region is in particular specialised within life science. The so-called "Medico Valley" is one of the world leading clusters for life science with a number of large international companies such as Novo Nordisk, Novozymes and H. Lundbech. Copenhagen is also home to one of the leading venture capital markets for biotechnology in the world. Recently, another major initiative within the area is the creation of the Copenhagen Cleantech Cluster. A new area for smart specialisation is within healthcare technology and innovation, especially in connection to the construction of new hospitals in the region. There is a large potential within this area as the Capital Region authorities are responsible for both healthcare and innovation policies. The Capital Region has also tied a relatively large proportion of its development fund in the two regional organisations Copenhagen Capacity and Wonderful Copenhagen with the task of attracting talent and business tourists from aboard. One area where the region needs to place greater emphasis within the area of smart specialisation is the specific framework conditions within different clusters in the region, as these can differ substantially between different sectors. The cluster specific framework conditions might include the need for special educational initiatives or the establishment of platforms for stronger collaboration between companies within a certain cluster. A better understanding of the cluster specific framework conditions will probably be the next steps for the Capital Region within the area of smart specialisation. 4.2 Possible future orientations and opportunities The Capital Region has all opportunities to create a top-european innovation system. The framework conditions for innovations are good, the institutional governance setup is favourable, and key stakeholders already work together in developing the innovation performance in the region within the Capital Region Growth Forum. There is a strong alignment with national priorities and a high level of co-financing with EU structural funds in the business development strategy formulated by the Growth Forum. However, these factors don t seem to materialise in a strong innovation performance as have been documented in a number of different studies in recent years. Although no thorough evaluation exits to give a final answer, a more coherent strategy for improving the innovation capacity in the region could probably have a positive impact on the innovation performance. Previously, many innovation projects have been small and spread out over many different areas as opposed to focusing on meeting the key challenges for the Copenhagen. A future strategy for developing the innovation performance in Copenhagen should focus on larger project within fewer key areas, as is the intention with the next five year strategy from the Capital Region Growth Forum. There might also be a room for policymakers in Copenhagen to take a more active ownership in the formulation and implementation of a coherent strategy for the economic development in the region. Today, the chairman of the Growth Forum is also the chair of the governing body of the Capital Region, the regional council, with a number of responsibilities such as healthcare for 1.6m people. Therefore, officials from local government working in the Growth Forum secretariat are left with a large responsibility for helping to formulate and implement a business development strategy. Regional Innovation Monitor 19

27 Appendix A Bibliography 1. Capital Region Growth Forum (2009): Evaluation of the work and results by The Growth Forum of the Capitol Region Capital Region Growth Forum (2010): Business development strategy for The Capital Region, Available at: 479DD757B100/0/Erhvervsudviklingsstrategien_pixi_Englishversion.pdf 3. Danish Enterprise and Construction Authority (2009): Entrepreneurship Index. Available at: x/index.htm 4. Danish Enterprise and Construction Authority (2010): Iværksætterindeks Available at: rksaetterindeks_2010/index.htm 5. FORA (2007): Metropolers Globale Udfordringer. Region Hovedstaden i den globale konkurrence. Available at: 6. FORA (2010): Nordic Entrepreneurship Monitor. Available at: pdf 7. FORA (2011): Produktivitet i Danmark: Den danske vækstudfordring. Available at: 8. OECD (2009): OECD Territorial Reviews of Copenhagen, Denmark. 9. The Economic Counsel (2010): Dansk Økonomi, efterår 2010 Available at: IRIS Group & FORA (2010): Human resources and knowledge creation: An assessment of human resources and knowledge creation in the Stockholm, Helsinki and Copenhagen regions. Available at: research/fora-publikationer/2010.aspx 20 Regional Innovation Monitor

28 Appendix B Stakeholders consulted 1. Kim Møller, CEO, Oxford Research (28 January 2011). 2. Tage Riskjær Svendsen, Consultant, The Capital Region of Denmark (31 January 2011). 3. Signe Danø Andersen, Consultant, The Capital Region of Denmark (31 January 2011). 4. Jørgen Rosted, CEO, Jørgen Rosted Rådgivning (3 February 2011). 5. Henrik Madsen, Head of Division, The Capital Region of Denmark (15 February 2011). Regional Innovation Monitor 21

29 Appendix C RIM Repository information 22 Regional Innovation Monitor

30 Baseline regional profile DANMARK DANMARK Region Capital Region of Denmark NUTS Code DK01 Regional Profile Introduction The Capital region of Denmark has a population of 1.3m people, and is the most highly educated, most innovative and most cosmopolitan region in Denmark. The high innovation performance is seen by high growth rate and increase in productivity compared with the rest of Denmark. The region generates about 40% of the Danish GDP, and 75% of the employment growth in Denmark in the last decade was created in the Capital region. Repository Support mesures More companies in Growth Policy documents Regional Partnership agreement on growth and business development Partnership for knowledge, growth and welfare a business development strategy The road to a strong biotech cluster in the Capital region Organisations Capital Denmark Growth Forum Unit for regional development within the Capital Region of Denmark Symbion Economy The Capital region of Denmark has a population of 1.3m, corresponding to approximately 30% of the Danish population. The region is geographically the smallest in Denmark with only 2,561 km2-6% of the Danish area. The region stretches from the capital city Copenhagen in the south, to Elsinore in the north and Hundested in west. The region also includes the island of Bornholm. The Capital region is the front runner of the five regions in Denmark with regards to innovation and economic performance. The region has a GDP per capita of 50,000 which is around 40% higher than the average GDP per capita in Denmark. The region also generates about 40% of the Danish GDP, and 75% of the employment growth in Denmark over the last decade was created in the Capital region. The strong innovation performance in Copenhagen is shown in the productivity. In the period from 1995 to 2008, productivity increased about 0.9% on average in the region. This is a marked increase compared with the rest of Denmark. The region has also seen a sensible growth in recent years. Form 2000 to 2008, the growth in GDP was 4.1%. This is high compared with the rest of Denmark, but less so in international comparison. The growth in GDP in the capital region in Sweden was 2.9% and 3.9% in Finland. However, it was 4.5% in the capital region of Holland, another small open economy. The Capital region has a high number of global focused companies: 36% of the global oriented Danish companies are