3. Policy mapping methodology
The policy mapping identifies institutional arrangements and policy practices that can strengthen FDI-SME linkages and increase the potential of productivity and innovation spillovers on local economies across the 27 EU Member States. The mapping helped refine the conceptual framework and assessment tools that are presented in Part I of this report. The data collected have helped develop typologies of governance frameworks and policy instruments, with a view to informing national and subnational governments on the policy options available and identifying possible gaps in their own country.
Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and their innovation capacities, the availability and capabilities of local suppliers, and the existence of dynamic entrepreneurial ecosystems are important determinants of foreign direct investment (FDI) location decisions, and the opportunities international investment can bring to local economies. In turn, FDI can serve as a conduit for domestic SMEs to expand on international markets and benefit from the knowledge, technology and innovation spillovers that take place in global value chains (GVCs) (OECD, 2019[1]) (OECD, 2021[2]). However, the opportunities and spillovers are not automatic and depend on a complex mix of economic, market and firm-specific factors that interact and cannot be considered separately.
Governments at national and subnational levels can play a key role in strengthening linkages between FDI and SMEs and improving the scope and quality of productivity and innovation spillovers from FDI to the local economy. Public action towards these objectives – hereinafter referred to as FDI-SME policies (Box 3.1) – can take many forms as it addresses deficiencies in different diffusion channels (i.e. value chain linkages, strategic partnerships, labour mobility, and competition effects), in different enabling conditions (e.g. FDI characteristics, or the absorptive capacity of local SMEs) and different contexts (e.g. structural, economic and geographical characteristics of the country or region) (Chapter 1). In fact, a policy initiative can act upon several channels and/or enabling conditions at the same time, reflecting the multitude and complexity of policy goals pursued, as well as the many possible pathways. FDI-SME policies also cut across four policy domains, i.e. investment policy, SME and entrepreneurship policy, innovation policy and regional development policy (Part 1, Figure 1.1). This diversity also reflects the fact that SME and entrepreneurship performance is driven by a multidimensional range of business conditions (OECD, 2019[3]) (OECD, 2021[2]).
Looking at FDI-SME policies in an adequate and coherent manner requires a policy mix approach, i.e. to refer to the set of policy rationales, arrangements and instruments implemented to deliver one or several policy goals, as well as the interactions that can take place between these elements (Meissner and Kergroach, 2019[4]). The main challenge for governments is to ensure that the components of the FDI-SME policy mix are consistent with the country’s economic structure, policy priorities and economic geography. This approach is also aligned with the OECD Recommendation on SME and Entrepreneurship policy for developing frameworks and tools that could improve the effectiveness of SME&E policies, through coherence and synergy across varied policy areas and actors (OECD, 2022[5]).
This chapter presents the methodology used to map the relevant institutions and policies that support FDI-SME linkages and spillovers in the 27 EU Member States. The purpose of the mapping is to provide a comprehensive inventory of government action across the EU area, compare national approaches and institutions in different country contexts, and inform policy making in the field. The mapping complements existing research on FDI-SME policies, present good practices in their design and implementation, and highlight key considerations for national and subnational governments that seek to strengthen the performance of FDI-SME ecosystems. Insights from the mapping are described in Chapters 4 and 5.
The term FDI-SME policies refers to policies that aim to strengthen the linkages between FDI and domestic SMEs and create an enabling environment for the diffusion of knowledge and technology spillovers. By pursuing these goals, FDI-SME policies ultimately aim to maximise the positive impact of FDI on the productivity and innovation of domestic SMEs.
The basic premise underlying the existence of FDI-SME spillovers is that foreign firms tend to be more knowledge- and technology-intensive than domestic SMEs. Therefore, intended or unintended benefits can spill over to the local economy. These may arise from the supply chain relationships of foreign firms, their market interactions (e.g. competition, imitation, agglomeration effects) or the mobility of workers towards local firms. FDI-SME spillovers are not always positive. For instance, foreign firms can generate negative spillovers through unsustainable or irresponsible practices of their supply chains.
FDI-SME linkages refer to the multiple types of connections and interactions that may occur between FDI and domestic SMEs, and which provide SMEs with opportunities to get exposed to FDI activities and capture valuable knowledge from them. FDI-SME linkages may also be regarded as “diffusion channels” of knowledge and technology spillovers and mainly consist of the supply chain relationships between FDI and SMEs (e.g. their buyer/supplier linkages); the different types of formal partnerships that they can establish (e.g. joint ventures, R&D&I collaborations); their connections through labour flows (e.g. staff mobility between FDI and domestic SMEs); and their market interactions (e.g. competition, imitation, agglomeration effects).
Besides acting upon diffusion channels themselves, FDI-SME policies may also seek to improve the broader enabling conditions of spillovers, e.g. increasing inflows of knowledge-intensive FDI, improving the absorptive capacity of domestic SMEs, and strengthening clusters and agglomeration economies. FDI-SME policies may thereby affect the quality of the broader FDI-SME ecosystem, defined as the set of multiple actors and resources that contribute to and are necessary for maximizing the benefits of FDI to domestic SMEs at national and regional level.
Source: Authors’ elaboration.
The research work started with a mapping of the institutional environments (e.g. ministries, implementing agencies, subnational entities) and governance frameworks that shape FDI-SME strategic policy objectives, based on keywords, concept search and text analysis. Identifying the relevant national and subnational institutions and collecting information on their characteristics and coordination mechanisms allowed to classify EU Member States on the basis of the complexity of their institutional environment and understand the roles and responsibilities of different institutions. Subsequently, the relevant policy initiatives that these institutions administrate (alone or jointly with other institutions) were identified on the basis of the same concepts and further text analysis.
Policy information on FDI-SME policies and institutions was drawn from official sources (e.g. national strategies, action plans, websites of relevant ministries and implementing agencies), as well as OECD and EU reports and publications. Information was collected at national and institutional levels through desk research. The collected information was validated and complemented by the relevant institutions in the EU Member States through an online survey that was pre-filled with the information gathered (total of 108 national institutions, Annex 4.A.). Blank survey questionnaires were also sent to 67 subnational institutions to collect information on FDI-SME policies implemented by regional and local authorities. The survey helped to better identify coordination arrangements across policy domains (investment, SME, innovation, regional development) and tiers of government (national and subnational). The survey also provided additional information on policy initiatives that was not available online (e.g., budget, number of beneficiaries, perceived impacts, COVID-19 impact). Pre-filling information allowed to facilitate the data collection that was conducted in 2021-2022, during the COVID-19 crisis.
The research work builds on recent efforts to better understand the institutional and policy landscape of FDI and SME policies through the OECD Surveys of Investment Promotion Agencies (Box 3.2), the OECD SME and Entrepreneurship Outlook (OECD, 2019[3]), and the EC/OECD project on Unleashing SME Potential to Scale up, which proposes a cross-country analysis of national institutions and policies in support of SME scale up and growth, through a policy mapping approach (Box 3.3) (OECD, 2022[6]).
The policy mapping builds on similar exercises undertaken by the OECD since 2011 for the OECD-EU STIP Compass and the international database of Science Technology and Innovation Policies (EC/OECD, 2016[10]; EC/OECD, 2022[11]; OECD, 2018[7]). The analytical framework and methodology for the collection and analysis of policy information follows the approach proposed by Kergroach (2017[12]) and Meissner and Kergroach (Meissner and Kergroach, 2019[4]) to monitor and benchmark the innovation policy mix.
The collected data and policy information contributed to the development of the OECD FDI Qualities Policy Toolkit (OECD, 2022[13]), which reviews policy practices to improve the impacts of FDI on sustainable development; and to the development of the OECD Data Lake on SMEs and Entrepreneurship, which allows to monitor SME&E performance and business conditions by offering a one-stop-shop access to relevant information, data and policy guidance (OECD, 2022[14]). Going forward, the ambition is to build towards a broad-based rollout of policy indicators and a harmonised policy database across OECD countries and regions that increasingly leverage the breadth of information that is collected at country/region levels and throughout thematic projects.
OECD-IDB Survey on Investment Promotion Agencies
The OECD and Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) jointly designed a comprehensive survey providing a mapping of current investment promotion practices of IPAs. The objective of the survey is to identify key trends across agencies and provide comparisons across regions. It fosters peer learning among IPA practitioners and policymakers, allowing them to better understand what drives differences and similarities across agencies. As of today, the survey of IPAs covers around 70 economies, including 32 from the OECD, 19 from Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), 8 from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), 10 from countries of Eastern Europe, the South Caucasus and Central Asia (Eurasia), and 2 from Southeast Asia. The survey is divided into nine parts, including: (1) Basic profile of IPAs; (2) Budget; (3) Personnel; (4) Offices (home and abroad); (5) Activities; (6) Prioritisation strategy; (7) Monitoring and evaluation; (8) Institutional interactions; and (9) IPA perceptions on FDI.
OECD Survey on Prioritisation and Monitoring & Evaluation of Investment Promotion Agencies
IPAs continuously reassess their priorities to maximise their effectiveness in attracting investment and to ensure its positive effects on the local economies. As part of these efforts, the contribution towards achieving the SDGs and attracting “high-quality” investments have been increasingly on the IPAs’ agendas, especially in the aftermath of COVID-19. The OECD designed a survey to collect systematic information on current prioritisation and M&E strategies and tools to provide an up-to-date view of these efforts and provide a lens for building on these efforts going forward.
The survey was shared with IPA representatives from OECD countries in the form of an online questionnaire, which was completed between April and June 2021. The dataset includes national IPAs from the following 32 countries: Australia, Austria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. The data and information gathered through this survey benefitted from the discussions and comments from IPAs obtained at a dedicated session at the annual OECD IPA Network meeting in October 2021.
OECD Survey on Investment Promotion and Regional Development
The OECD IPA Network – a platform that brings together senior investment promotion practitioners to facilitate peer-learning – is exploring how governments can promote, facilitate and retain FDI in support of regional development and what is the role of IPAs. For this purpose, the OECD designed a survey to collect systematic information on investment promotion and regional development. It focuses on the role of national IPAs, their relationships with subnational bodies and their main objectives and priorities with regards to attracting FDI in support of regional development. The architecture for investment promotion and facilitation varies greatly from one country to the other. It can be multi-layered and involve several types of subnational entities (e.g. subnational IPAs, subnational economic development organisations, subnational authorities, subnational offices of national IPAs). The survey was shared with IPA representatives from OECD countries in the form of an online questionnaire, which was completed between April and June 2022 by 36 OECD countries. The results of the survey were presented at the 7th OECD IPA Network meeting in October 2022.
Source: (OECD, 2018[7]; OECD, 2021[8]; OECD, 2022[9])
The EC/OECD multi-year project on Unleashing SME Potential to Scale Up analyses in a cross-cutting approach national how the 38 OECD countries create the conditions and incentives for SMEs to scale up. The mapping seeks to explore what shape national scaling up policies take, as well as to identify typologies of institutions involved, while paying attention to synergies and trade-offs across policy measures and coordination and governance mechanisms. The cross-country analysis also aims to identify possible gaps in public intervention. The first phase (2020-22) explored two policy areas where government interventions can be conducive to SME growth, namely financing growth and turning data into business.
Scale up policy is at the intersection of a large number of policy domains that may act upon the drivers of SME performance, i.e. innovation, research and development (R&D), digitalisation, entrepreneurship, skills development, intellectual property rights, trade, investment promotion, procurement or cluster policies etc. The scope of the scale up policy analysis is intentionally broad, so as to capture the “ecosystem of policies” which can alter the diverse conditions of SME transformations and address the diverse needs of diverse populations of scalers. The policy work goes therefore beyond venture capital for financing SME growth, or beyond the use of big data analytics for improving SME data governance. In the context of this exercise, specific attention has been placed on SME-targeted policies, including specific sub-segments of the SME population.
Source: (OECD, 2022[15]) ; (OECD, 2022[15]).
The institutional framework that governs policy formulation and implementation in the FDI-SME policy area differs from country to country. For example, some countries may have a more centralised policy system, while others may give more power and responsibility to subnational levels of government. Similarly, some countries have a single government agency in charge of the implementation of multiple aspects of FDI-SME policies, whereas in others policy responsibilities are distributed across a large number of government actors. The more institutions are involved at the intersection of investment promotion, SME development, innovation and regional development, the more complex their governance systems become. Regardless of the institutional set-up, it is important that different institutions and levels of government have clear responsibilities and that their actions are aligned through appropriate reporting channels and robust coordination mechanisms.
The mapping of institutional arrangements across EU Member States suggests the following typologies of governance frameworks:
Highly integrated settings, which target the entire FDI-SME ecosystem through consolidated “mega-agencies” that report to a single ministry and provide comprehensive and cross-disciplinary business support packages, combining investment promotion and facilitation, innovation funding, skills training, technical assistance and advice for SMEs to grow internationally;
Integrated settings, which involve multiple specialised government agencies that operate at the intersection of investment promotion, SME development, innovation and regional development and report to the same line ministry;
Partially integrated settings, in which the IPA and the SME and entrepreneurship agency report to the same ministry – usually the Ministry of Economy –, while responsibilities for innovation promotion and regional development are split between other ministries (e.g. Ministries of Science and Education, Ministries of Regional Development).
Fragmented settings, which are characterised by the multiplicity of government actors involved in the design and implementation of FDI-SME policies as well as the presence of several highly specialised agencies with a narrow mandate that report to different line ministries.
The complexity of these institutional environments has implications on how much coordination effort is required and what type of coordination mechanisms should be deployed to ensure policy coherence. It also affects how public institutions interact with each other, the type of strategic relations they form, and ultimately the way FDI-SME policies are designed and implemented. Chapter 4 provides further insights into the characteristics of institutional settings in the EU area.
The mapping reveals that FDI-SME policies involve many policy domains that go beyond those that are conducive to investment and SMEs in general and, in turn, that policy responses do not fit neatly within any single governmental department or agency. It provides a compendium of good practices and shows that the majority of the identified policies do not solely target the diffusion channels through which productivity spillovers take place, but also the broader enabling environment. The way policies affect the potential for FDI-SME linkages and spillovers can vary, and it is therefore crucial that policymakers consider these differentiated impacts.
Governments have a diverse set of policy instruments at their disposal to support FDI-SME ecosystems. A policy initiative can make simultaneous use or various policy instruments, using them in complementary and mutually reinforcing ways to achieve the desired strategic objective. Based on the type of instrument used, policies can be classified into:
Network and collaboration platforms and infrastructure, which refers to platforms, facilities and infrastructures that enable spatial and network-related knowledge diffusion.
Technical assistance, information and facilitation services, which aim to encourage the uptake of knowledge and facilitate interactions between foreign and domestic firms (e.g. matchmaking services and networking events).
Financial support schemes, in direct (e.g. grants, loans) or indirect forms (e.g. tax relief) to encourage (or discourage) certain types of business activities (e.g. investment tax incentives, R&D vouchers, wage subsidies for skilled workers).
Regulatory measures, which define the framework within which foreign and domestic firms operate and often use legal rules to encourage or discourage different types of business activities (e.g. lighter administrative and licensing regimes for certain types of investments, local content requirements for foreign firms and labour mobility incentives).
Governance frameworks, such as national strategies and action plans that lay out policy priorities and define the framework within which policy action on FDI, SMEs and innovation is organised. Some guiding instruments have co-ordination functions and ensure overarching policy governance (e.g. national strategies or action plans) (OECD, 2022[16]).
Table 3.1 provides an overview of the main FDI-SME policy instruments, illustrated by selected examples. Based on this typology of policy instruments, Chapter 5 presents key findings on the scope, strategic objectives, and design features of the national policy mix across the 27 EU Member States.
References
[26] Bemelmans-Videc, M., R. Rist and E. Vedung (eds.) (1998), Policy instruments: Typologies and theories., Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick.
[20] Borras, S. and C. Edquist (2013), “the choice of innovation policy instruments”, Innovation studies 2013/4. Lund University, Centre for Innovation, Research and Competences in the Learning Economy (CIRCLE).
[28] Crescenzi, R., A. Dyevre and F. Neffke (2018), Regional innovation: How Foreign Firms allow New Places to Joint the Global Innovation Contest.
[11] EC/OECD (2022), STIP Compass: International Database on Science Technology and Innovation Policies, https://stip.oecd.org/stip.html.
[10] EC/OECD (2016), International Database on STI Policies, https://www.innovationpolicyplatform.org/ecoecd-stipdatabase.
[19] Edler, J. et al. (2013), “Innovation policy mix and instrument interaction: A review.”, National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA) working paper, 13-20 November, http://www.nesta.org.uk/wp13-20.
[24] Eliadis, P., M. Hill and M. Howlett (eds.) (2005), What is a policy instrument? Policy tools, policy mixes and policy implementation styles, McGill-Queens University Press, Montreal.
[27] Eurostat (2022), Statistical regions in the European Union and partner countries, 2022 edition, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, https://doi.org/10.2785/321792.
[21] Flanagan, K., E. Uyarra and M. Laranja (2011), “Reconceptualising the ‘policy mix’ for innovation”, Research Policy, Vol. 40/5, pp. 702-713.
[12] Kergroach, S. (2017), “Innovation policy mix: Conceptual and operational approach in the OECD STI Outlook 2012–2014–2016”, Eu-SPRI Forum & AIT Austrian Institute of Technology (Eds.), Book of abstracts Paper presented at the annual conference of the Eu-SPRI Forum: The future of STI—The future of STI policy, Tech Gate Vienna, 7–9 June (pp. 1–578)., http://euspri-vienna2017.org/abstracts/.
[4] Meissner, D. and S. Kergroach (2019), “Innovation policy mix: mapping and measurement”, Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 46/1, pp. 197-222, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-019-09767-4.
[13] OECD (2022), FDI Qualities Policy Toolkit, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7ba74100-en.
[6] OECD (2022), Financing Growth and Turning Data into Business: Helping SMEs Scale Up, OECD Studies on SMEs and Entrepreneurship, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/81c738f0-en.
[14] OECD (2022), OECD Data Lake on SMEs and Entrepreneurship, https://www.oecd.org/cfe/datalake.htm.
[5] OECD (2022), OECD Recommendation on SMEs and Entrepreneurship Policy, https://www.oecd.org/cfe/smes/oecdrecommendationonsmeandentrepreneurshippolicy/.
[17] OECD (2022), Strengthening FDI and SME Linkages in Portugal, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d718823d-en.
[16] OECD (2022), Strengthening FDI and SME Linkages in the Slovak Republic, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/972046f5-en.
[9] OECD (2022), “The geography of foreign investment in OECD member countries: How investment promotion agencies support regional development”, OECD Business and Finance Policy Papers, No. 20, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1f293a25-en.
[15] OECD (2022), Unleashing SME potential to scale up, https://www.oecd.org/cfe/smes/sme-scale-up.htm.
[2] OECD (2021), SMEs and Entrepreneurship Outlook 2021, https://doi.org/10.1787/97a5bbfe-en.
[8] OECD (2021), Together or apart: investment promotion agencies’ prioritisation and monitoring and evaluation for sustainable investment promotion, http://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/investment-policy/Investment-Insights-Investment-Promotion-Prioritisation-OECD.pdf.
[1] OECD (2019), FDI Qualities Indicators: Measuring the sustainable development impacts of investment, http://www.oecd.org/fr/investissement/fdi-qualities-indicators.htm.
[3] OECD (2019), SMEs and Entrepreneurship Outlook 2019, https://doi.org/10.1787/34907e9c-en.
[7] OECD (2018), Mapping of Investment Promotion Agencies in OECD Countries, http://www.oecd.org/investment/Mapping-of-Investment-Promotion-Agencies-in-OECD-Countries.pdf.
[23] OECD (2010), “The Innovation Policy Mix”, in OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2010, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/sti_outlook-2010-48-en.
[22] OECD (2007), Instrument Mixes for Environmental Policy, OECD Publishing, Paris.
[18] Rogge, K. and K. Reichardt (2016), “Polici mixes for sustainability transitions: An extended concept and Framework for analysis”, Research policy, pp. 1620-1635.
[25] Smits, R. and S. Kuhlmann (2004), “The rise of systemic instruments in innovation policy”, International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, Vol. 1/1/2, p. 4.
1. Institutional characteristics
1.1. Name of institution: _______________________________________________________
1.2. Location of headquarters: __________________________________________________
1.3. The institution reports to: ___________________________________________________
1.4. Core activities of the institution: (multiple answers possible)
1.5. Among the following, what is the institution’s core function(s):
1.6. Core mandates of the institution in terms of policy domains: (multiple answers possible)
1.7. Annual budget (in millions of national currency, current prices):
1.10. The institution operates in the following regions: (multiple answers possible) (Please refer to regions as defined by the latest edition of Eurostat’s Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS) (Eurostat, 2022[27]))1
1.12. [Applies to institutions with shared subnational offices] Please specify the name of the institution(s) with which you share a subnational office: _________________________________
2. Coordination with other institutions
2.1. Does the institution coordinate its operations, activities and policies with other government institutions?
2.2. [Applies to institutions which reply “Yes” in 2.1] Coordination takes place across which policy domains?
2.3. [Applies to institutions which reply “Yes” in 2.1] Coordination takes place across which tiers of government?
2.4. [Applies to institutions which reply “Yes” in 2.1] Please specify the institutions with which you coordinate your operations, activities and policies:
2.5. [Applies to institutions which reply “Yes” in 2.1] Coordination with other institutions is formalised and ensured by (multiple answers possible):
2.6. [Applies to institutions which reply “Yes” in 2.1] Please briefly describe and provide examples of how you coordinate your activities with other institutions in your country.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
3.1. Has the institution adjusted its priorities and activities to respond to the Covid-19 crisis? If yes, please specify the type of changes.
3.2. [Applies to institutions which reply “Yes” in 3.1] Please briefly describe and provide examples of the main changes made to respond to the Covid-19 crisis.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
4. Policies supporting FDI diffusion channels for SME productivity and innovation
4.1. Does your institution design or implement policies with any of the objectives mentioned below (multiple answers possible)? If yes, please select the relevant objectives.
No, my institution does not design or implement policies with the objectives mentioned below
Yes, my institution designs and/or implements policies with the following objectives (multiple answers possible):
o Promote and facilitate value chain linkages between foreign and domestic firms
o Promote and facilitate strategic partnerships between foreign and domestic firms
o Encourage labour mobility from foreign firms to the domestic entrepreneurial ecosystem
o Create market conditions for fair competition and knowledge exchange between foreign and domestic firms
o Strengthen the innovation and technological capabilities of domestic SMEs
4.2. [Applies to institutions which reply “Yes” in 4.1] Please list the names of all the policy initiatives administered by your institution that contribute to these objectives:
4.3. [Applies to institutions which reply “Yes” in 4.1] If your institution has recently produced studies or reports on country-level and regional statistics regarding FDI trends, SME performance and innovation, please list them below and provide a weblink.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
[The remaining questions appear separately for each of the policy initiatives listed in Question 4.2]
5. Description of policy initiatives
5.1. Which of the objectives mentioned below can be associated with Policy X? (please select no more than 3 objectives)
Promote and facilitate value chain linkages between foreign and domestic firms
Promote and facilitate strategic partnerships between foreign and domestic firms
Encourage labour mobility from foreign firms to the domestic entrepreneurial ecosystem
Create market conditions for fair competition and knowledge exchange between foreign and domestic firms
Strengthen the innovation and technological capabilities of domestic SMEs
5.2. Please briefly describe Policy X and provide a weblink if available:
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
5.3. Does Policy X specifically target SMEs or large firms? (multiple answers possible)
5.4. Does Policy X specifically target domestic or foreign firms?
5.5. Does Policy X target specific geographic areas in your country?
5.7. Does Policy X target specific value chain activities? (multiple answers possible)
Pre-production services (e.g. R&D, concept development, design, patents)
Low- and medium-technology manufacturing (e.g. production of simple, relatively unsophisticated goods)
High-technology manufacturing (e.g. production of highly specialised, technologically sophisticated goods)
Post-production services (e.g. marketing, sales, logistics, brand management, distribution and customer services)
5.8. How would you best describe Policy X using the categories below?
5.10. How many firms or individuals have benefited from Policy X?
5.11. Annual budget allocated for the implementation of Policy X (in millions of national currency):
5.12. Is policy X implemented in partnership with other institution(s)?
5.13. Has Policy X ever been evaluated by your or other institutions?
5.14. From your own perspective, what is the level of success of Policy X?
5.15. What could be improved in the design and/or implementation of Policy X?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
5.17. [Applies to institutions which reply “Adjusted” in 5.19] Which of the following aspects changed? (multiple answers possible)
5.18. [Applies to institutions which reply “Objectives” in 5.20] What are the new objectives of Policy X in response to the Covid-19 crisis?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
5.19. [Applies to institutions which reply “Sectoral or value chain focus” in 5.20] What are the new sectors or value chains targeted by Policy X in response to the Covid-19 crisis?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
5.20. [Applies to institutions which reply “Target group” in 5.20] What are the new target groups of Policy X in response to the Covid-19 crisis?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
5.21. [Applies to institutions which reply “Budget” in 5.20] What changes were made to the budget of Policy X in response to the Covid-19 crisis?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
5.22. [Applies to institutions which reply “Geographic area of implementation” in 5.20] What changes were made to the geographic areas targeted by Policy X in response to the Covid-19 crisis?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
5.23. [Applies to institutions which reply “Timeframe of implementation” in 5.20] What changes were made to the implementation timeframe of Policy X in response to the Covid-19 crisis?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
5.24. [Applies to institutions which reply “Other” in 5.20] What other changes were made to the design and/or implementation of Policy X in response to the Covid-19 crisis?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Note
← 1. For the regional decomposition, the approach adopted by Crescenzi, Dyevre and Neffke (2018[28]) is used.