APPENDIX 2.1.

BENCHMARKING GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY OF FINLAND,

IRELAND AND SLOVENIA
Overall index of Government efficiency
1999

2000

2001

2002

FINLAND

IRELAND

SLOVENIA

45

45

44

43

Source: IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook 2002

Best and Worst sub factors of three countries

FINLAND
2/2

IRELAND
10/5

SLOVENIA
38/43

Fiscal Policy [5]

Public finance [26]

BEST 2

Business
legislation[1]
Education [1]

Education [26]

WORST 1

Fiscal Policy [28]

Business
legislation[7]
Public finance [28]

WORST 2

Public finance [14]

Overall/gover.effic
iency
BEST 1

Institut. Framework
[9]

Business
legislation[47]
Fiscal Policy [45]

Source: IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook 2002

Government efficiency sub factors ranks for year 2002

FINLAND
IRELAND
SLOVENIA

Public
finance
14
28
26

Fiscal policy
28
5
45

Institutional
framework
2
9
39

Source: IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook 2002

Corruption index of three countries

Rank

Country

1
Finland
23
Ireland
27
Slovenia
Source: Transparency, 2002

CPI 2002
score
9.7
6.9
6.0

Business
legislation
1
7
47

Education
1
9
26

APPENDIX 2.2.
BENCHMARKING CULTURAL NORMS & VALUES OF FINLAND,
IRELAND AND SLOVENIA
Scores of the discussed countries on Cultural variables (Inglehart, 1997)

Postmaterialist Values
Subjective Well-being
Interpersonal Trust

Finland
33
76
63

Ireland
22
80
47

Slovenia
16
23
17

Index Scores and Ranks (in brackets) according to IBM employees based research (Hofstede, 1993,2001)

Power Distance
Uncertainty Avoidance
Individualism/Collectivis
m
Masculinity/Femininity

Finland
33 (46)
59 (31)
63 (17)

Ireland
28 (49)
35 (47)
70 (12)

Slovenia
71 (14)
88 (8)
27 (33)

26 (47)

68 (7)

19 (50)

Scores and ranks (in brackets) of the discussed countries on Value variables (IMD, 2002)

Adaptability and flexibility

National culture open to
foreign ideas
Values of society support
competition
Quality of life

Finland
7,7 (10)
7,4 (22)

Ireland
8,0 (5)
7,7 (19)

Slovenia
5,6 (43)
6,4 (41)

8,1 (4)

7,5 (10)

6,1 (31)

9,0 (10)

7,9 (19)

5,5 (34)

APPENDIX 2.3.
BENCHMARKING EDUCATION OF FINLAND, IRELAND AND SLOVENIA
Tertiary enrolment by field of study as % of 20-24 age group in 1995.

Natural
sciences

Mathematics
and computer
science
3,5
1,2
0,1

Engineering

Finland
2,9
12,7
Ireland
5,4
3,9
Sloveni
0,7
5,6
a
Source: UNESCO, World Development Report, 1998/1999

Share of students by field of study.

Field of study
Humanistic science
Social & economic
science
Natural science
Math & computer
science
Medicine, hygiene
Law
Techniques,
architecture
Source: UMAR, 2002

Slovenia 96/97 (share in

%)
All
1. year
students
8
7
38
41

EU, 92/93 (share in %)

mean (all
stud.)
13
25

min (all stud.)

4(Denmark,NL
)
2 (NL)

14 (Ireland

4 (Ireland)
1 (Finland)
13(Netherland
s)

18 (Finland
19 (Spain
23 (Finland

6
5
21

4
5
21

10
9
17

9 (Portugal)
16 (Finland)

Comparison of main indexes showing the situation of human resources and values in the countries

Category
Percent of population that has attained
at least tertiary education for persons
25-34 (1999)
Total public expenditure on education (%
GDP year 2000)
Pupil to teacher ratio secondary school

Finland
38 (3)

Ireland
29 (14)

Slovenia
19,5 (28)

5,9
(19)
17,4
(19)

6,7
(12)
21,6
(31)

5,4 (21)
12,2 (6)

max (all
stud.)
20 (Ireland
36 (NL)

7 (Finland

The educational system meets the needs

of a competitive economy
University education meets the needs of
a competitive economy
knowledge transfer

8,6 (1)

8,0 (2)

4,7 (29)

8,9 (1)

8,0 (2)

5,0 (34)

7,8 (1)

5,65
(11)

3,1 (42)

*The rank between 49 countries according to IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook 2002

APPENDIX 2.4.
BENCHMARKING INNOVATION SYSTEMS AND R&D POLICY OF
FINLAND, IRELAND AND SLOVENIA
Strengths and Weaknesses analysis of Innovation and R&D in Finland, Ireland and Slovenia

MAJOR STRENGTHS
relative to other EU
Member states
Finland*

Ireland*
*

Sloveni
a

Population with tertiary

degree; public and
business investment in
R&D, high-tech
patenting; Internet
penetration.
Supply of S&E
graduates; Innovative
SMEs; High-tech
services
adoption of EU
directives concerning
innovation and R&D
area

VIR: *internet 1 in **Internet 2

MAJOR
WEAKNESSES
relative to other
EU Member States
Relatively small No.
of Innovative SMEs.

Public R&D
Expenditure; Hightech patenting; Lifelong learning
Lack of R&D focus;
too much stress on
basic research;
insufficient transfer
of knowledge; lack
of cooperation; not
enough S&E
graduates

Major Observed Trends

between mid 1990s and
most recently available
data
Leading ahead on many
indicators particularly
tertiary education share,
business R&D investment,
USPTO patenting, high-tech
manufacturing value added.
Increased high-tech service
employment, EPO patenting,
high-tech manufacturing
value-added, declining
public R&D expenditure.
moderate increase of R&D
expenditures, however not
sufficient on the long run;

APPENDIX 2.5.
BENCHMARKING INNOVATION SYSTEMS AND R&D POLICY OF
FINLAND, IRELAND AND SLOVENIA
Selected criterions for presentation of Counties Scientific development
CRITERION

EXPLANATION

US$ million, 2000

US$ per capita, 2000
% of GDP, 2000
US$ million, 2000

FINLAND
Rank
(Value)
18 (4.013)
5 (774,7)
2 (3,319)
15 (2.854)

IRELAND
Rank
(Value)
29 (1.109)
18 (302,2)
20 (1,608)
24 (811)

SLOVENIA
Rank
(Value)
43 (274)
24 (137,9)
22 (1,514)
42 (126)

Total expenditure on R&D

Total expenditure on R&D
Total expenditure on R&D
Business expenditure on
R&D
Business expenditure on
R&D
Total R&D personnel
nationwide
Total R&D personnel
nationwide per capita
Total R&D personnel in
business enterprise
Total R&D personnel in
business per capita
Basic research*

US$ per capita, 2000

5 (550,88)

24 (63,2)

full time equivalent,

x1000, 2000
full time equivalent per
1000 people, 2000
full time equivalent,
x1000, 2000
full time equivalent,
x1000, 2000
Attitude toward long term
economic development

18 (50,6)

18
(220,87)
37 (12)

1 (9,788)

17 (4,27)

20 (3,28)

17 (27,8)

29 (8,2)

36 (4,1)

1 (5,381)

18 (2,228)

19 (2,06)

3 (8,03)

17 (6,28)

37 (3,92)

39 (8,5)

* Data was gathered with survey among top representatives. Source: WCY 2002

APPENDIX 2.6.
BENCHMARKING FINANCIAL ENVIRONMENTOF FINLAND, IRELAND
AND SLOVENIA
Comparison of IMDs financial criteria for Finland, Ireland and Slovenia in 2002.

Criteria

Stock Market

Bank efciency

Finance (Overall factor rankings)

Credit flows easily from
banks to businesses
Venture capital is
easily available for
business development
Banking services are
widely developed in your
country
Banking regulation
does not hinder
competitiveness in your
country
Stock markets provide
adequate financing to
companies
Rights and
responsibilities of
shareholders are well
defined

Finland

Ireland

Slovenia

Rank*
(Score)**
4
1 (8.65)

Rank
(Score)
14
10 (7.43)

Rank
(Score)
38
28 (6.18)

2 (7.71)

5 (6.67)

34 (3.66)

1 (9.56)

24 (8.07)

47 (5.02)

1 (9.22)

14 (7.93)

42 (5.08)

4 (7.97)

22 (6.04)

43 (3.52)

1 (8.65)

12 (7.54)

39 (5.43)

Efciency

Financial institutions
transparency is widely
developed in your country
Insider trading is not
common in the stock
market

1(8.34)

20 (6.77)

35 (5.06)

2 (7.95)

7 (7.12)

40 (4.46)

Source: IMD, 2002.

Comparison of Banking and Finance sub-factor for three countries in year

2002
Country
Finland
Ireland

Score Compared with

previous year
2 - Better
1 - Stable

Slovenia

3 - Stable

Level of
Restrictions on Banks
Low level of restrictions
Very low level of
restrictions
Moderate level of
restrictions

Source: Wall Street Journal, 2002.

APPENDIX 2.7.
BENCHMARKING INFRASTRUCTURE OF FINLAND, IRELAND AND
SLOVENIA
Selected criterions for presentation of Counties Technological development
CRITERION

EXPLANATION

Investment in
telecommunications
Mobile telephone
subscribers

% of GDP

New information
technology*
Computers per capita
Internet users
Information technology
skills*
Technological cooperation*
Development and
application of technology*

No. of
subscribers per
1000 inhabitants

No. of computers
per 1000 people
per 1000 people

FINLAND
Rank
(Value)
31 (0,46)

IRELAND
Rank
(Value)
14 (0,681)

SLOVENIA
Rank
(Value)
10 (0,808)

6 (831,6)

12 (753,5)

29 (477)

1 (9,3)

36 (6,49)

43 (6,06)

3 (614)

14 (461)

26 (284)

7 (512,52)
2 (8,88)

24 (289,47)
10 (7,93)

28 (203,05)
47 (4,98)

1 (8,67)
1 (8,67)

12 (7,33)
10 (7,73)

42 (5,43)
41 (5,43)

Funding for technological

development*
High-tech exports
High-tech exports

US$ millions,
2000
% of
manufactured
export, 2000

1 (8,5)

10 (6,68)

41 (3,2)

19 (10.532)

12 (31.278)

41 (368)

11 (27,21)

3 (47,75)

38 (4,35)

* Data was gathered with survey among top representatives; source: WCY 2002

APPENDIX 2.8.
KEY SUCCESS FACTORS OF IRELAND AND FINLAND
Finland

Specific factors

Ireland

Common factors

Specific factors

Bottom up approach
Being focused
Top down approach
Growth through internal forces
Consider
(innovation)
specifities of the environment
Positive networking
Social consensus
Growth through FDI
Consistency of policy
Commercialization of innovation
Strong education system
Developing linkages
Vision Creation of favorable business environment
EU subventions

APPENDIX 2.9.
BENCHMARKING RECOMMENDATION FOR SLOVENIA
CREATE SLOVENIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK
Role of development bank would be in generating future development, stimulating and
implementing innovations, establishing confidence among economic subjects and in their
relation to SMEs, establishing an innovative environment in local communities, and constructing
the future economic identity of the country.
PROMOTE ENTREPRENEURIAL CULTURE
The program for promoting entrepreneurship seeks to remove barriers that hinder the more rapid
development of entrepreneurship.
EDUCATING PEOPLE FOR USING EUROPEAN UNION FUNDS

Education of the people for using European Union funds should be included in all management
and entrepreneurial schools, and also in all other programs, because often start-ups are made
from engineers or others, not familiar with several options.
CREATE A SHARED LONG TERM VISION, BASED ON KNOWLEDGE AND
INNOVATION
Creation of shared long term vision, based on knowledge and innovation is crucial for Slovenia.
DEFINE PERSPECTIVE NEW INDUSTRIES AND DELIBERATELY DEVELOP THEM
Clear and credible commitment to new industries should be made, in contrast with some
questionable projects in last decades like revitalizations of ironworks.
COMMERCIALIZATION OF NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT
Commercialization of new products is business-driven. The R&D funding should be strongly
focused to national research and technology programs, which have turned out to be productive
and functional.
PROMOTE ENTREPRENEURIAL CULTURE AND CONNECT OUTSTANDING
PEOPLE
The government should try to spot the most outstanding individuals and try to connect them.
This could be done through interesting business conferences with direct invitations or through
government or even EU-funds sponsored projects that would require multiparty involvement.
IMPROVE KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER
A high level of innovativeness is one of the major assets of national economies in the
competition with other economies. Knowledge flows are crucial for innovations. Thus, it is
important for national economy systems to improve knowledge flows and be able to profit
intensively from such flows.