Benchmarking Regional Innovation: A Comparison of Bavaria, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland



4 Data Sources

The regional innovation benchmarks are based on three related surveys of innovation
activity among manufacturing plants carried out over last decade. The first of these
(the Product Development Survey or PDS) was a postal survey conducted between
October 1994 and April 1995 relating to plants’ innovation activities over the 1991-93
period (Roper et al., 1996). The PDS survey covered all regions in the UK, the
Republic of Ireland and Germany with the following response rates: 23.7 per cent
(1300 responses) in Germany, 20.6 per cent (1700 responses) in the UK and 32 per
cent (520 responses) in the Republic of Ireland. For the regional benchmark analysis
we focus on the respondent plants in Northern Ireland (348), the Republic of Ireland
(529) and Bavaria (229).

Our second survey of innovative activity (the Product and Process Development
Survey or PPDS) covered Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland only and related
to plants’ innovation activity over the 1994-96 period. The survey was conducted
between November 1996 and March 1997 and response rates were 43 per cent (293
responses in Northern Ireland and 28.6 per cent (459 responses) in Republic of Ireland
(see Roper and Hewitt-Dundas, 1998). Our most recent survey the Product and
Process Development Survey 3 or PPDS3) covered Northern Ireland, the Republic of
Ireland, and Bavaria and was undertaken between October 1999 and April 2000
(Roper and Anderson, 2000). Plants were asked about their innovation activity over
the 1997 to 1999 period with response rates as follows: Northern Ireland, 41 per cent
(419 responses); the Republic of Ireland, 29 per cent (624 responses); and Bavaria 16
per cent (345 responses).

The three surveys have a number of common features which make them ideal for
deriving regional innovation benchmarks. First, the surveys were structured to be
regionally representative, or as in the case of the PDS in Germany, were constructed
with large enough sampling fractions to enable regionally representative results to be
derived (see Love and Roper, 2000). Second, within each region, sample structures
were constructed to expose differences in innovation behaviours between plants in
different employment sizebands (Acs and Audretsch, 1988, 1993) and manufacturing
sectors (Geroski, 1990). Perhaps more important, however, is the fact that each of the
surveys were conducted at plant (or establishment) level rather than at the level of

10



More intriguing information

1. Climate Policy under Sustainable Discounted Utilitarianism
2. The name is absent
3. Subduing High Inflation in Romania. How to Better Monetary and Exchange Rate Mechanisms?
4. DURABLE CONSUMPTION AS A STATUS GOOD: A STUDY OF NEOCLASSICAL CASES
5. The name is absent
6. The magnitude and Cyclical Behavior of Financial Market Frictions
7. Evaluating the Success of the School Commodity Food Program
8. Demand Potential for Goat Meat in Southern States: Empirical Evidence from a Multi-State Goat Meat Consumer Survey
9. Estimating the Technology of Cognitive and Noncognitive Skill Formation
10. Detecting Multiple Breaks in Financial Market Volatility Dynamics
11. The name is absent
12. Three Strikes and You.re Out: Reply to Cooper and Willis
13. Cancer-related electronic support groups as navigation-aids: Overcoming geographic barriers
14. Comparison of Optimal Control Solutions in a Labor Market Model
15. Expectations, money, and the forecasting of inflation
16. Self-Help Groups and Income Generation in the Informal Settlements of Nairobi
17. Restructuring of industrial economies in countries in transition: Experience of Ukraine
18. Draft of paper published in:
19. The name is absent
20. Bargaining Power and Equilibrium Consumption