Agnieszka Kleszcz

(Angielski) PDF


Innovation is one of the main determinants of economic development. Innovative activity is very complex, thus difficult to measure. The complexity of the phenomenon poses a great challenge for researchers to understand its determinants. The article focuses on the problem of innovation-related geographical disparities among European Union countries. Moreover, it analyses the principal components of innovation determined on the basis of the European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS) dimensions. The aim of the paper is to identify the principal components of the innovation index which differentiate countries by analysing the structure of the correlation between its components. All calculations were based on indicators included in the EIS 2020 Database, containing data from the years 2012–2019. A comparative analysis of the studied countries’ innovation performance was carried out, based on the principal component analysis (PCA) method, with the purpose of finding the uncorrelated principal components of innovation which differentiate the studied countries.
The results were achieved by reducing a 10-dimensional data set to a 2-dimensional one, for a simpler interpretation. The first principal component (PC1) consisted of the human resources, attractive research systems, and finance and support dimensions (understood as academia and finance). The second principal component (PC2), involving the employment impacts and linkages dimensions, was interpreted as business-related. PC1 and PC2 jointly explained 68% of the observed variance, and similar results were obtained for the 27 detailed indicators outlined in the EIS. We can therefore assume that we have an accurate representation of the information contained in the EIS data, which allows for an alternative assessment and ranking of innovation performance. The proposed simplified index, described in a 2-dimensional space, based on PC1 and PC2, makes it possible to group countries in a new way, according to their level of innovation, which offers a wide range of application, e.g. PC1 captures geographic disparities in innovation corresponding to the division between the old and new EU member states.


innovation, European Innovation Scoreboard, EIS, principal component analysis, PCA


O30, C10, O52


Acs, Z. J. (2002). Innovation and the Growth of Cities. Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing. .

Bielińska-Dusza, E., & Hamerska, M. (2021). Methodology for Calculating the European Innovation Scoreboard – Proposition for Modification. Sustainability, 13(4), 1–21. .

Bishop, C. M. (2006). Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning. New York: Springer Science+Business Media. .

Davidescu, A. A., Paul, A. M. V., Gogonea, R. M., & Zaharia, M. (2015). Evaluating Romanian Eco- Innovation Performances in European Context. Sustainability, 7(9), 12723–12757. .

Dutta, S., Lanvin, B., & Wunsch-Vincent, S. (Eds.). (2018). Global Innovation Index 2018: Energizing the World with Innovation (11th edition). Ithaca, Fontainebleau, Geneva: Cornell University, INSEAD, World Intellectual Property Organisation. .

Dziallas, M., & Blind, K. (2019). Innovation indicators throughout the innovation process: An extensive literature analysis. Technovation, 80–81, 3–29. .

Edquist, C., Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M., Barbero, J., & Zofío, J. L. (2018). On the meaning of innovation performance: Is the synthetic indicator of the Innovation Union Scoreboard flawed. Research Evaluation, 27(3), 196–211. .

European Commission. (2019a). European Innovation Scoreboard 2019. Luxembourg: European Union. .

European Commission. (2019b). European Innovation Scoreboard 2019: Methodology Report. Maastrich: Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology.

European Commission. (2020a). European innovation scoreboard 2020 – Database [Data set]. .

European Commission. (2020b). European innovation scoreboard 2020 – Executive summary. .

European Commission. (2020c). European Innovation Scoreboard 2020: Methodology Report. Maastricht: Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology.

Gareth, J., Witten, D., Hastie, T., & Tibshirani, R. (2013). An Introduction to Statistical Learning with Applications in R. New York: Springer Science+Business Media. .

Gray, V. (Ed.). (2017). Principal Component Analysis: Methods, Applications and Technology. New York: Nova Science Publishers.

Holgersson, T., & Kekezi, O. (2018). Towards a multivariate innovation index. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 27(3), 254–272. .

Jolliffe, I. T., & Cadima, J. (2016). Principal component analysis: a review and recent developments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 374(2065), 1–16.

Kontolaimou, A., Giotopoulos, I., & Tsakanikas, A. (2016). A typology of European countries based on innovation efficiency and technology gaps: The role of early-stage entrepreneurship. Economic Modelling, 52, Part B, 477–484. .

Kowalski, A. M. (2020). Dynamics and Factors of Innovation Gap Between the European Union and China. Journal of Knowledge Economy. .

Lee, K., & Lee, J. (2020). National innovation systems, economic complexity, and economic growth: country panel analysis using the US patent data. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 30(4), 897–928. .

Lever, J., Krzywinski., M., & Altman, N. (2017). Principal component analysis. Nature Methods, 14(7), 641–642. .

van der Maaten, L., & Hinton, G. (2008). Visualizing Data using t-SNE. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 9(86), 2579–2605. .

Makkonen, T., & van der Have, R. P. (2013). Benchmarking Regional Innovative Performance: Composite Measures and Direct Innovation Counts. Scientometrics, 94(1), 247–262. .

Malik, K., & Jasińska-Biliczak, A. (2018). Innovations and Other Processes as Identifiers of Contemporary Trends in the Sustainable Development of SMEs: The Case of Emerging Regional Economies. Sustainability, 10(5), 1–17. .

Malik, K., Mach, Ł., Szewczuk-Stępień, M., & Bebenek, P. (2020). Specialization Integrated Strategy of Innovations: Effective Model for Emerging Regional Economy Development? European Research Studies Journal, 23(2), 78–97. .

Mtar, K., & Belazreg, W. (2020). Causal Nexus Between Innovation, Financial Development, and Economic Growth: the Case of OECD Countries. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 12(1), 310–341. .

Murphy, K. P. (2021). Probabilistic Machine Learning: An introduction. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Onea, I. A. (2020). Innovation Indicators and the Innovation Process – Evidence from the European Innovation Scoreboard. Management & Marketing. Challenges for the Knowledge Society, 15(4), 605–620. .

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2005). Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data (3rd edition). Paris. .

Snedecor, G. W., & Cochran, W. G. (1989). Statistical Methods (8th edition). Ames: Iowa State University Press.

Stojanovska, S., & Madzova, V. (2018). Differences in efficiency of innovation performance among EU candidate countries and EU 28 countries. ILIRIA International Review, 8(1), 117–144. .

Szopik-Depczyńska, K., Kędzierska-Szczepaniak, A., Szczepaniak, K., Cheba, K., Gajda, W., & Ioppolo, G. (2018). Innovation in sustainable development: an investigation of the EU context using 2030 agenda indicators. Land Use Policy, 79, 251–262. .

Turk, M. A., & Pentland, A. P. (1991). Face recognition using eigenfaces. Proceedings. 1991 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (pp. 586–591). .

Van den Berg, H. (2016). Economic growth and development (3rd edition). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Company.

Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M., Aparicio, J., Ortiz, L., Carayannis, E. G., & Grigoroudis, E. (2020). The productivity of national innovation systems in Europe: Catching up or falling behind?. Technovation, 102. .

Zihao, G., Qibin, J., Sheng, C., & Ben, N. (2020). A New Innovation Index System Based on Principal Component Analysis: Evidence from Shenzhen. ICEME 2020: 2020 The 11th International Conference on E-business, Management and Economics. New York: Association for Computing Machinery. .

Do góry
Copyright © 2019 Główny Urząd Statystyczny