Knowledge economy of the EU: strengths and weaknesses

M. Vovk1, D. Braga2
1. Prydniprovs'ka State Academy of Civil Engineering and Architecture (Dnipro, Ukraine)
2. University of Economics in Bratislava (Bratislava, Slovak Republic)
292 - 300
Cite as:


The aim of the article is to analyze strengths and weaknesses of knowledge economy of the EU.We have developed integral Knowledge Economy index (KEi) for analysis of knowledge economy in the EU. There was identified three groups of the EU countries by the KEi index. In view of the need to be in agreement with the postindustrial economy and Lisbon Strategy such disparities in the development of knowledge economy among the EU countries it was create unfavorable conditions for long-term growth as well as for fostering the region’s competiveness and its ability to counter economic shocks.There was concluded that one of the significant driver of the strengthen knowledge economy is the creation of strong institutional bodies. The other set of problems are problems of innovations commercialization. 

market of innovations, knowledge economy, EU, public policy, strength, weaknes

  1. Avadikyan, A., & Cohendet, P. (2009). Between market forces and knowledge based motives: the governance of defense innovation in the UK. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34 (5), 490–504. 
  2. Balassa, B. (1967). Trade Creation and Trade Diversion in the European Common Market.The Economic Journal, 77 (305), 1.
  3. Canoy, M., Liddle, R., & Smith, P. (2007). The Single Market: Yesterday and Tomorrow. Bureau of European Policy Advisers (BEPA) European Commission. Retrieved from
  4. Center for Economic Studies (CESifo) (2012). Knowledge Economy Index, 1995-2012. Retrieved from:
  5. Dutta, S., Lanvin, B., & Wunsch-Vincent, S. (2016). World Intellectual Property Organization and Johnson Graduate School of Management (Cornell University). The global innovation index 2016: winning with global innovation. Retrieved from:
  6. European Commission (2015). Eurostat Database, Eurostat. Retrieved from:
  7. European Commission (2002). More research for Europe. Towards 3% of GDP. Retrieved from:
  8. European Commission (2003). Investing in research: an action plan for Europe. Retrieved from:
  9. European Commission (2005). More research and innovation: a common approach; communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 488 final.
  10. European Commission (2010). Europe 2020: A Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth: Communication from the Commission. Retrieved from:
  11. European Commission and Directorate-General for the Internal Market (2012). 20 years of the European single market: together for new growth: main achievements. Retrieved from: 20years/achievements-web_en.pdf.
  12. European Council (2002). Presidency Conclusions. Barcelona European Council, Paragraph, 44, 19.
  13. European Council (2016). Presidency conclusions / Lisbon European Council. Retrieved from:
  14. FlashEurobarometer 394 and TNS Political & Social (2014). The role of public support in the commercialisation of innovations’. Retrieved from:
  15. Griffith, R., Harrison, R., & Simpson, H. (2006). The link between product market reform, innovation and EU macroeconomic performance. European economy Economic papers, 243. Retrieved from:
  16. Sturges, H.A. (1926). The Choice of a Class Interval. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 21 (153). Retrieved from:
  17. IndexMundi (2014). IndexMundi Database. Retrieved from:
  18. Laforet, S. (2008). Size, strategic, and market orientation affects on innovation. Journal of Business Research, 61 (7), 753–764.
  19. Laperche, B., Uzunidis, D., & Von Tunzelmann, G. N. (eds) (2008).The genesis of innovation: systemic linkages between knowledge and the market. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
  20. Milhaupt, C.J. (1996). Market for Innovation in the United States and Japan: Venture Capital and the Comparative Corporate Governance Debate. Nw. UL Rev., 91 (1), 865.