Journal of Korea Technology Innovation Society (기술혁신학회지)

Korea Technology Innovation Society (한국기술혁신학회)
권호 표지

Analysis of the Feasibility and Reliability of Models Measuring National Innovative Capability: with a Focus on the IUS of the EU

국가혁신역량 측정모형의 신뢰성과 타당성 분석: 유럽연합의 IUS를 중심으로

  • 엄익천 (한국과학기술기획평가원) ;
  • 조주연 (한국전통문화대학교 문화재관리학과) ;
  • 김대인 (기초과학연구원)
  • Received : 2014.01.15
  • Accepted : 2014.02.12
  • Published : 2014.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

National Innovative Capability (NIC) is an important decisive factor where economic growth is concerned. As such, it is very important to measure and manage NIC. The composite index approach is one of the widely used approaches to measuring NIC, but there have been insufficient reviews of its feasibility and reliability. This paper conducted an analysis of the feasibility and reliability of the report on the last three years (i.e. 2011 through 2013) of the Innovation Union Scoreboard (IUS) of the EU, which is the most representative means of measuring NIC. It turned out that its reliability meets the recommended criteria as a result of Chronbach's alpha-based test of the models of IUS-related composite index. However, neither the absolute fit index nor the incremental fit index was found to meet the recommended criteria in a construct validity analysis. It also turned out that predictive validity is very low as a result of panel linear regression analysis of sectors and items of IUS-related composite index. This paper presents a number of considerations to be made when measuring national innovative capability using the composite index approach, as well as major policy suggestions based on the results of the analysis.

국가혁신역량은 경제성장의 중요한 결정요인으로 이에 대한 측정과 관리는 매우 중요하다. 국가혁신역량을 측정하는 다양한 접근방법 중 복합지표 접근법이 널리 활용되고 있지만, 그 타당성과 신뢰성에 대한 검토는 부족한 실정이다. 따라서 국가혁신역량을 측정하는 가장 대표적인 유럽연합 IUS(Innovation Union Scoreboard)의 최근 3개년 보고서('11년~'13년)를 중심으로 신뢰성과 타당성을 분석하였다. 분석결과 IUS 복합지표 측정모형의 크롬바흐(Chronbach's) ${\alpha}$ 검정 결과 신뢰도는 권고기준을 충족하였다. 하지만 구성타당도와 예측타당도를 분석한 결과, 구성타당도에서는 절대적합지수와 증분적합지수 모두 권고기준을 충족하지 못하였다. 또한 IUS 복합지표의 각 부문과 항목에 대한 패널선형회귀분석 결과, 예측타당도가 매우 낮게 나타났다. 이러한 분석결과를 토대로 복합지표 접근법으로 국가혁신역량을 측정할 때 고려사항과 주요 시사점을 제시하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. 권명화 (2013), "국제특허생산 관점에서 국가혁신역량의 결정요인 연구", 한국정책학회보, 22(1): 229-266.
  2. 고길곤.박세나 (2012), "국가경쟁력지수에 대한 비판적 검토: IMD와 WEF의 국가경쟁력지수를 중심으로", 행정논총, 50(3): 35-66.
  3. 교육과학기술부.한국과학기술기획평가원 (2012), 2012년도 국가과학기술혁신역량평가.
  4. 김계수 (2011), 구조방정식 모형분석, 서울: 한나래아카데미.
  5. 김유찬.정지선 (2009), "조세분야 국가경쟁력 지수에 대한 평가와 경쟁력 강화방안", 조세연구, 9(2): 217-239.
  6. 김석현 외 (2009), 기업부문 과학기술혁신지료 연구 : 연구전략과 주요 지표, 과학기술정책연구원, 조사연구 2009-02-1.
  7. 민인식.최필성 (2010), STATA 패널데이터분석, 한국STATA학회.
  8. 삼성경제연구소 (2008), "국가경쟁력지수의 허와 실", CEO Information, 제682호, 삼성경제연구소.
  9. 우종필 (2012), 구조방정식모델 개념과 이해, 서울: 한나래아카데미.
  10. 차용진 (2012), "2011 글로벌경쟁력지수(GCI) 모형검증 및 비판적 검토", 한국거버넌스학회보, 19(1): 1-24.
  11. 차용진.이홍재 (2007), "2006 글로벌경쟁력지수(GCI)에 대한 고찰 - GCI모형의 타당도 및 신뢰도 검토-", 정책분석평가학회보, 17(3): 113-137.
  12. 최영출 (2009), "국가경쟁력지수의 타당성과 신뢰성 분석", 한국사회와 행정연구, 20(3): 41-63.
  13. 최영출.최외출 (2008), "국가경쟁력과 지방분권과의 인과관계분석", 도시행정학보, 21(2): 203-226.
  14. 최성호.문혜선 (2006), "국가기술사업지표 개발 방안 연구", 기술혁신학회지, 9(1): 26-51.
  15. 하혜수 (2009), "지방분권형 지방행정체제개편 대안연구", 한국지방자치학회보, 21(3): 33-52.
  16. Archibugi, D., Denni, M. and Filippetti. A. (2009), "The technological capabilities of nations: The state of the art of synthetic indicators", Research Policy, 34(2005): 175-194.
  17. Archibugi, D. and Coco, A. (2005), "Measuring technological capabilities at the country level: A survey and a menu for choice", Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 76(2009): 917-931.
  18. Archibugi, D. and Coco, A. (2003), "A New Indicator of Technological Capabilities for Developed and Developing Countries (ArCo)", World Development, 32(4): 629-654
  19. Arundel, A. and Garrelfs, R. (1997), Innovation measurement and policies, European Commission, EIMS publication, Luxembourg.
  20. Bell, M. and Pavitt. K. (1993), "Technological Accumulation and Industrial Growth: Contrasts Between Developed and Developing Countries", Industrial and corporate change, 2(1): 157-210. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/2.1.157
  21. Bandura, R. (2006), A Survey of Composite Indices Measuring Country Performance: 2006 Update , United Nations Development Program - Office of Development Studies.
  22. European Commission (2013), Innovation Union Scoreboard 2013.
  23. Hollanders, H. and Cruysen, A. V. (2008), Rethinking the European Innovation Scoreboard: A New Methodology for 2008-2010, InnoMetrics EIS 2008 Methodology Report.
  24. Furman, J., Hayes, R., Porter, M. and Stern, S. (2002), "The determinants of national innovative capacity", Research Policy, 31(6): 899-933. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00152-4
  25. Godin, B. (2003), "The emergence of S&T indicators: why did governments supplement statistics with indicators?". Research Policy, 32(4): 679-691. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00032-X
  26. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. W. and Anderson, R. E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis: A GlOBAL PERSPECTIVE(7th ed), PEARSON Inc
  27. Hye-Jung J. (eds). (2010), "International Comparative Analysis of the Innovation Evaluation System - Focused on the Evaluation of the COSTII of Korea", Asian Research Policy, 1(2): 137-164.
  28. Joreskog, K. G. and Sorbom, D. (1989), LISREL 7: A Guide to the Program and Applications, Chicago: Scientific Software International Inc.
  29. Khayyat, N. T. and LEE, J. D. (2012), "A New Index Measure of Technological Capabilities for Developing Countries", TEMEP Discussion paper, No. 2012: 91.
  30. Kim, L. (1980), "Stages of development of industrial technology in a developing country: a model", Research Policy, 9(3): 254-277. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(80)90003-7
  31. Lall, S. (2001), "Competitiveness Indices and Developing Countries: An Economic Evaluation of the Global Competitiveness Report", World Development, 29(9): 1501-1525. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00051-1
  32. Lall, S. (2003), "Indicators of the relative importance of IPRs in developing countries", Research Policy, 32(9): 1657-1680. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(03)00046-5
  33. Narin, F. (1994), "Patent Bibliometrics", Scientometrics, 30(1): 147-155. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017219
  34. Nunnally, J. C. and Bernstein, I. H. (1994), Psychometric theory(3th ed), McGraw-Hill.
  35. OECD (2008), Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators - METHODOLOGY AND USER GUIDE.
  36. Romer, P. (1990), "Endogenous technological change", Journal of Political Economy, 98(5): 71-102. https://doi.org/10.1086/261725
  37. Westphal, L. E., Kim, L. and Dahlman, C. J. (1985), "Reflections on the Republic of Korean's Acquisition of Technological Capability", In Resenberg, N. and Frischtak, C. (Eds.), International Technology Transfer: Concepts, Measures and Comparisons, New York: Praeger: 162-221.