Summary
Poland in the period 2014–2020 will be required as a beneficiary of a relatively large European Union funds more closely follow the aims and objectives of the EU 2020 strategy. Non-observance by Poland since 2004 Lisbon strategy resulted in a very poor outlook for Poland in the years 2030–2060. The paper presents an original proposal to enter meta functional regions in Poland, for better implementation of the EU2020 Strategy
Keywords: global R & D race, the Lisbon Strategy, the EU 2020 strategy, smart specialization in the regions, subregions and meta regions
1. Introduction
Over the next five decades the Internet and related ICT technology will profoundly transform the European Community (EC) societies. Knowledge is the heart of much of today global economy and managing knowledge has become vital to companies, nations and UE success. Knowledge today is the understanding of relations and causalities and is therefore essential in making operations ef-fective, building business or operation processes or predicting the outcome of business, operations or system’s models. Hence it is close to operation research and systems analysis. The global mar-ketplace of the 21st century will reward firms, corporations that value enterpreneurial risk – taking, invest heavily in developing their Intellectual, Knowledge, Research and Development Capital, pro-mote individual knowledge and research works as well as teams of knowledge and research works. In “Knowledge EC” the Virtual Knowledge organizations will play the crucial role.
Despite the dotcom boom and bust, the computer and telecommunications as well as ICT has barely begun. Over the next decades the Internet and related technology really will profoundly trans-form EC societies.
We are living in a time epitomized by very rapid technological changes, increasing environment complexity and uncertainty, intense global competition and interdependence among businesses. For an organization to succeed on a global scale, a radical shift in business procedures is required to understand how a new technological infrastructure and knowledge infrastructure can redefine your ideas of what business can be done and from where, when and how. The globalization of almost all economies and societies has created a real impulse of huge telecommunication and information tech-nology infrastructure investments which has resulted in a necessary but not yet sufficient infor-mation and knowledge infrastructure of the world.
The Internet is global. The technology talent base is global in addition. Perspectives and policies on ICT in all societies are global too. We are living in the very beginning of the new civilization era where education will play more and more important role. The Polish education sector especially
university sector succeeded very well during last 20 years transitions. The number of university students increased over fourfold. The knowledge civilization will need in future up to 70 percent of workers with college and university diplomas. The Polish education sector infrastructure is ready to do that on demand in the such future.
However, unfortunately the Polish ICT infrastructure is progressing very slowly and is not ready yet on demand for knowledge organizations and knowledge workers yet and in the near future more-over Polish R&D contribution to global R&D effort is dramatically low.
2. World of R&D
Every years, Battelle with R&D Magazine, analyze U.S. and global spending trends in govern-ment and industrial R&D, reveals a changing landscape—one that reflects the inextricably linked areas of energy and environment, health and life sciences, and national security. For example, rising energy demand is being supplied primarily by fossil fuels which, in turn, pose serious consequences for the environment and human health. The potential for a pandemic that could disrupt national and community infrastructures, including commerce, utilities, transportation, and public safety, increases with adverse changes to climate. Dwindling energy resources create potentially grave implications for global security, including civilian casualties and the destruction of economic infra-structures.
Today, global restructured businesses are centered on energy technology, health and life sci-ences, and security serving industrial, government, and international customers. Clearly, R&D plays an essential role in addressing these interwoven challenges. Recent increases in the U.S. federal R&D investment from stimulus funds, especially for basic research, are being met with a decline in overall industrial R&D spending over the past year. Yet it is encouraging to see that even during the current economic downturn, many major companies throughout the world continue to invest in in-novation activities. They recognize, as we do, that R&D is the source of inin-novation from which economic growth and prosperity develop. Investing now, despite these challenging economic times, not only fosters economic recovery, it also positions us for future success while helping solve major global challenges.
While R&D is essential, we also must develop the next pool of technological talent.
To develop EC workforce, we need sustainable, positive change in STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) education, at all levels, from preschool through postgraduate. In recent years, EC has increased its emphasis on education. We strongly believe that this ongoing commitment will serve as a catalyst for accelerating innovation for years to come.
Fig. 1 Future R&D workers Source: www.batelle.org Reports on world R&D 2006/2010.
It is well known that R&D spending continues to expand on a global basis. World-wide spend-ing exceeded $1 trillion in 2006 and continues to expand at a substantially higher rate than most countries’ inflation rates. This year’s edition of the Global R&D Report, a collaboration between Battelle, Columbus, Ohio, and R&D Magazine, forecasts that global R&D spending will reach $1,210 billion in 2008, 7.6% higher than in 2007. Much of this growth continues to be fueled by a rapid expansion of R&D in China, whose spending is expected to grow by nearly 24% in 2008 to $216.8 billion—about 18% of global spending, up from 14% just two years ago.
R&D growth continues in all geographical regions, but not in Poland. Much of the present at-tention is given to the very significant growth of the offshore R&D outsourcing practices involving activities throughout Asia—in China, India, South Korea, and Singapore. Also in Poland of the off-shore R&D outsourcing practices is increasing, especially in Cracow, Gdansk and Lodz.
There is a long history of R&D interactions among the U.S., Western Europe, and Japan. It is only in relatively recent times that the linkages have spread—and then multiplied almost exponen-tially—to include the rest of Asia and start very slowly in Eastern Europe. Current literature is replete with reports on the expanding R&D activities in China and India.
This change has been spurred by a number of different factors on both the supply and the de-mand sides of the R&D enterprise. On the supply side, the expansion of the education system and the sheer numbers that go through the system have produced a rapidly growing population of scien-tists and engineers, created to satisfy the requirements and aspirations of both domestic governments and industries. Throughout India and China, the production of scientists and engineers has acceler-ated in response to, or is being driven by, major needs and incentives. On the demand side, both China and India have experienced major changes in government attitudes and practices as applied
to trade, openness of markets, and desires and necessities of becoming stronger participants in a world-class technology-supported global economy.
Regardless of the rationale for entering an R&D environment, there is little question that there is a need for an understanding of the environment and the structure of the local enterprise. While there is much information available regarding, for example, the total amounts of R&D that are spent in any given country, it is insufficient to base decisions on such gross figures as total R&D or the ratio of R&D to gross domestic product (GDP). While R&D as a percent of GDP figures are bandied about as indicators of the strength of the national commit commitment to scientific research, they have relatively little meaning in terms of just how that investment contributes to the growth and welfare of the country.
In general, the data on total R&D expenditures are generally consistent in that there are few precipitous changes in either the raw data for performance and support or in the distribution of re-sources among the funding or performing sectors. To be sure, there are occasional irregularities, many of which may be caused by changes in definitions and scope. However, in those countries where a formalized and accountable R&D system has been in place for quite some time, the relative stability and inertia permits making reliable estimates of the expected year-to-year behavior. Unfor-tunately, in Poland available data on R&D expenditures by firms are not very reliable.
3. Emerging Economies Drive Global R&D Growth
Most of the financial trauma from the worst economic recession in 50 years is now over, and positive economic growth for both the general economy and the R&D community appears likely for the foreseeable future. While there is always the threat of a double- or even triple-dip economic recession, that would not be expected to have an effect on R&D spending. That said, both general economic and R&D growth for advanced economies, including the U.S. and the European Commu-nity (EC), are forecast to be mediocre over the next several years. Economic growth and R&D growth for emerging economies such as China and India, however are already strong and are ex-pected to increase over the next several years, following a relatively minor slowdown during the global recession. China and India had a combined 7.6% GDP (gross domestic product) growth from 2008 to 2009, compared with a -3.6% GDP average decline for the other 38 R&D spending countries documented in this report. Given these factors, the 2010 Global R&D Forecast, created by Battelle analysts and the editors of R&D Magazine, predicts overall global R&D will increase 4.0% in 2010 to $1,156.5 billion from $1,112.5 billion spent in 2009. This increase will mostly be driven by con-tinued spending by China and India, who will drive a 7.5% increase in Asian R&D. American R&D spending is expected to increase 3.2% to $452.8 billion, while EC spending will only increase 0.5% to $268.5 billion in 2010.
The 2010 forecast underscores a trend noted in the first Battelle-R&D Global Report in Sep-tember 2005, wherein both the Americas (U.S., Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina) and the EC were falling behind the spending levels seen in Asian countries. Even Japan, the second largest R&D spender in the world, is now trailing the level of spending by China and India. If anything, the 2008– 09 global recession has accelerated this trend, as American and EC economies are not expected to even return to their 2008 level of R&D spending for several years, let alone begin to challenge the
current level of spending by China and India. The increasing amount of debt the U.S. and Europe are accruing will also limit their general economic and R&D growth capabilities.
Additionally, a difficult-to-document amount of spending by EC and American industrial firms can directly be attributed to the creation and support of new R&D facilities in China and India (through foreign direct investment, or FDI). Those investments are significantly more than those countries are investing in either America or the EC. The National Science Foundation (NSF) will begin to document these investments by U.S. firms in Asia starting in 2010, but specific results is not available now.
The relative strength and depth of the science and technology infrastructures in the advanced economies is likely to ensure their continued persistence in the short term future, as this report doc-uments. However, the increasing growth and intellectual property gains being made in China and India are not likely to diminish anytime soon.
Some lessening may occur as the emerging economies become more equitable in terms of per capita income, and their costs come to equal those in the advanced economies. But those changes appear to be far into the future, with many other issues to be addressed in the interim.
Beginning in 2009, the world’s governments spent $1.92 trillion in economic stimulus invest-ments to offset the effects of the global recession. About 38% of these stimulus packages was spent by Asian countries to offset their declines in economic growth. The majority of these monies will be spent in 2009 and 2010. The stimulus funding bills mostly appear to be successful, with a very noticeable effect on local R&D efforts. The unfortunate factor in these programs, however is that they dramatically increased the debt loads of those countries implementing them. And servicing the interest on these programs could detract from comparable R&D investments that might be made in the future.
Marginal economic growth has inspired additional stimulus incentives. Japan, for example, re-cently announced an additional $81 billion stimulus to support small- and medium-enterprises that have been hurt by the strong yen. There is discussion in the U.S. of a possible second stimulus package. (www.battelle.org)
4. The R&D World Race
China's rapid economic growth over the past several decades is now mirrored by a similar rapid growth in R&D funding and performance. This growth has been underpinned by economic reforms as well as by international openness to foreign trade and investment. China's “open door” policy— adopted in 1978—has been an integral part of its economic reform, which culminated in its accession to the World Trade Organization in 2001. China has built up its economy and its tremendous balance of trade surpluses with mostly low-cost consumer goods. However, the country has recently greatly increased its high-technology exports as well, increasing from just 5% in the early 1990s to over 30% in 2005. Foreign-owned firms are the dominant and increasing source (25% in 1996 and about 70% in 2005) of these high-tech exports, but they are generally less R&D intensive than domestic exports. In the communication, computer, and other electronic equipment area, for example, Chinese domestic firms have an R&D intensity that is about seven times greater than that of foreign-owned firms.
China’s R&D investment over the past decade has been history-making. This nation can no longer be considered an “emerging nation” when it exceeds and challenges both the U.S. and Europe
in terms of the intellectual property it generates and the financial and infrastructure commitments it continues to make in science and technology endeavors. While admittedly starting from a low base-line, Chinese researchers continue to grow their share of scientific publications and already lead the world in some areas. R&D investments slowed slightly over the past two years during the global recession, but still maintained the basic double-digit annual growth rate seen for more than ten years. The past two years saw significant Chinese investments in “big science” endeavors that include enhanced commitments to their space programs, aerospace development and manufacturing, renew-able energy, computer science, and life science programs. They also have developed and continue to expand their extensive S&T-based collaborations with Asian, European, and U.S. organizations and companies. While doing this they are building upon their low-cost manufacturing capabilities. In addition to China’s overwhelming investments and accomplishments in S&T areas and col-laborations, India continues to build its capabilities based on its vast resources and potential. Devel-opment of S&T has been a key incentive for India for more than 50 years, with notable accomplish-ments including self-sufficiency in food grain production, a growing space program, nuclear energy, and exports in biotech, pharmaceutical, and information technology services.
Investments in research, until recently, lagged behind that of China, the EC and the U.S. India’s government has made concerted efforts to change that stance with its latest five-year plan (2007 to 2012) that includes a four-fold increase for education over the previous plan. It also is targeting growth of its R&D as a share of GDP to grow from its current 0.9% level to 1.2% by 2012.
Despite its large population, India also has suffered from a shortage of skilled researchers, as a significant portion of its qualified population immigrated to the U.S. and Europe. A dedicated increase in the Indian government’s support of science and a subsequent improvement of existing institutions and the establishment of new facilities is beginning to result in the return of some expat-riate researchers.
5. Rise of the Global R&D and H. Edu Megaregions
Today, R&D and H. Edu global megaregions range is size from 5 to 100 million people, and they produce hundreds of billions – sometimes trillions – in economic output. They harness human creativity on a massive scale and generate most of the word’s scientific achievement and technolog-ical innovations. The R&D and H. Edu global megaregions of today mass together talent, productive capability, innovation and markets on a far larger scale than cities ever did U.S. economy are home of nearly 200 million Americans, more than two – thirds of the national population, and are growing at considerable faster rates than the nation as a whole.
Let us consider, a megaregions which must meet two key criteria. First, it must be a contiguous lighted area with more than one major city or metropolitan region. Second, it must produce more than $ 100 billion in LRP.
By that definition, there are exactly forty magaregions in the world If we take the largest megas in terms of population :
x The ten biggest are home to 666 million people or 10 percent of world population. x The top twenty comprise 1.1 billion people, 17 percent of the world total,
x The top forty are home to 1.5 billion people, 23 percent of global population When we look at economic activity, the figures are even more striking:
x The world’s ten largest megaregions in terms of economic activity (or LPR), which house approximately 416 million people or 6.5 percent of the world’s population, account for 43 percent of economic activity (13.4 trillion), 57 percent of patented innovations, and 53 per-cent of the most cited scientists.
x The top twenty megaregion in terms of economic activity account for 10 percent of popu-lation, 57 percent of economic activity, 76 percent of patented innovations, and 76 percent of the most cited scientists.
x The top forty megaregions in economic activity, which make up about 18 percent of the world’s population, produce 66 percent of economic activity, 86 percent of patented inno-vations, and house 83 percent of the most cited scientists.
In a 2003 Plock declaration of 100 scientist, politicians and some industrialist a conception of Central R&D and H. Edu Megaregion was presented, including Warsaw and Lodz metropolitan regions.
Today two kinds of three megaregions in Poland are consider: First -West Poland megaregion, including Szczecin, Poznan and Wroclaw, Central Poland megaregion, including Gdansk, Byd-goszcz-Torun, Warsaw, Lodz, Katowice and Cracow, East Poland megaregion, including Bialystok, Lublin, and Rzeszow (the Central Poland megaregion is very R&D and H. Edu intensive megaregion due to Warsaw and Cracow metropolitan regions). The Second one – Central Poland – Bydgoszcz-Torun, Warsaw, Lodz, Lublin, South Poland – Cracow, Kielce, Wroclaw, Rzeszow, Bialystok, Opole, West Poland – Poznan, Szczecin, Gdansk, Olsztyn, Zielona Gora.
6. Typology of regions in the EU by 2020 Euro Strategy
Fig. 2 Typology of regions in the EU by 2020 Euro Strategy
Source: P. McCan, w: Post seminar publication Territorial Dimension of Development Policies, Ostróda 2011.
Figure 2 shows the cube types of regions, types of types of types of growth and population growth.
Region A – is an intelligent, knowledge urbanized region, with access to the sea and a corresponding increase in population, own and immigration.
Region B – the region of knowledge of different population growth rates.
Region C – This rural-suburban area, located near the urban region, with areas of industrial production, the different dynamics of population growth.
Region D is the region growing, without the participation of science and technology, the popu-lation dynamics of different cases.
Poland with sixteen regions is Poland with a majority of Non S & T – driven Regions based can not provide present Knowledge Regions ready to implement the objectives of the European strategy
for smart growth 2020, specializing in the development of three smart meta structure (functional) Knowledge Regions covering the entire territory of Poland.
7. Big challenges for Poland in the years 2014–2030
In November 2012 the OECD presented in the Internet Going for growth A Report Looking to 2060: Long term global growth prospects, where Poland was among the countries with the need for more ambitious structural Reforms and fis cal consolidation raise GDP.
Fig. 3 More ambitious structural reforms and fiscal consolidation raise GDP
Source: Long-term Growth Scenarios, OECD Economics Department Working Papers No. 1000, forthcoming http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932718478.
More ambitious structural reforms and fiscal consolidation reduce global current account imbalances. This improvement comes about principally by lowering large current account surpluses in some non-OECD economies, especially China, because precautionary saving falls more rapidly as a consequence of implementing more rapid welfare reforms. Additionally, more ambitious fiscal consolidation reduces current account deficits in many OECD countries.
Fig. 4 More ambitious policies can reduce global imbalances
Source: Long-term Growth Scenarios, OECD Economics Department Working Papers No. 1000, forthcoming http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932718497.
Fig. 5 Poland and other countries in a Report Looking to 2060 Source: http://stats.oecd.org//Index.aspx?QueryId=39744#.
Fig. 6 Growth prospects: Luxemburg, Germany, Czech Republic, Poland, Estonia Source: http://stats.oecd.org//Index.aspx?QueryId=39744#.
Fig. 7 Growth prospects: Luxemburg, United States, Germany, Poland, Turkey, China, India Source: http://stats.oecd.org//Index.aspx?QueryId=39744#.
8. Two systemic approach to reforming Poland in the period 2014–2020
In Warsaw, at the conference "The State 2.0", which took place on 27 February 2013, with the participation of ministers and deputy ministers, the system presents two new approaches to reform-ing Poland in the period 2014–2020, with the use of European Union funds.
The first approach the Minister of administration and digitization Michal Boni called Country Optimum.
Fig. 8 First approach systemic proposed by the minister of administration .and digitization Michal Boni
Source: own
OPTIMUM STATE: x citizen-centered state
x not withdraw, but consciously field indicates intervention
x efficient use of new technologies and promotes education in the skills necessary for the development of modern society
x open government / smart government (social dialogue and participation) OPTIMUM STATE – RULES:
x State must adapt to the citizens, not the citizens of the state
x (citizen-centric) services tailored to the needs of individuals and groups of citizens, partic-ularly those requiring more support
x services must be designed with the aim of each, strong and weak, healthy and sick, living in the city and beyond
OPTIMUM STATE – THIS IS GOVERNMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS State
2.0
Poland 2.0
Opti
x local governments should have greater freedom organization – then you will be able to develop services for citizens
x about 80 thousand local government needs electronic mailboxes feeding rollers, standard forms for services
Nationwide entry OSAP Public Administration Network professional help IT professionals
x we need to sort out the funding model and organizational structure x further development of local roads
RULES OF RENEWAL THE SELF-SENSE
x Local authorities know best local conditions and needs x Role MAC:
spokesman for the local government side, understands the right of local authorities, coordinate and initiate action on them.
The second systemic approach introduced for Poland 2.0/3.0 Deputy Minister of Finance Jacek Kapica working with the Systems Research Institute of the Polish Academy of Sciences in 1997– 2001 in the application of advanced methods and computer system for the Central Board of Customs. After the liquidation of independence of the Central Office of Customs co-operation has been inter-rupted by the Minister of Finance
Fig. 9 Second approach systemic proposed by the Deputy Minister Jacek Kapica from the Ministry of Finance
Source: own.
Present and future prospects – “Administracj@3i” (Internet, intelligence, innovation) Internet Administracj@ Intelli-gence Innovation Poland 2.0 Task
Means of realizing the principles:
x programs transforming behavior departmental administration
x project management processes to optimize the state budget and public finance x projects providing technological potential
x innovative strategies (new) management and communication The proposed principles for the future of the state information system:
x one electronic identity citizen/ subject x citizen/subject transmits data only once
x any administrative case can be settled by electronic means
x administration provides a single location convenient electronic contact, not excluding contact the citizen/subject with portals from different fields
x digital security of the citizen / subject The Customs Service 3i – development priorities:
x
iNTERNET – electronic communication environment (ie: interactive communication, transactions and offers space, resource information, a source of knowledge, digitiza-tion of age)x iNTELLIGENCE – the intelligent use of knowledge (ie cooperation with business, scientists, other services, information management, application of knowledge, risk analysis)
x iNNOVATION – progress (ie: development, modernity, utility, effectiveness, effi-ciency, openness, activity, creativity)
9. Intelligent decision support for the constructive purposeful systems by Fumiko Seo
To derive the constructive purpose starting from the primitive purpose is usually not easy for entrepreneurial decision making because unexperienced entrepreneurs may often have shortsighted mind and tend to seek short-term profit ability in their hasty ambition. This will lead to internal instability and thus is not effective in the long run.
For supporting the derivation of the constructive purpose from the originál concepts and for checking the utility balances as the prerequisite for the embedding of the conflict finding and solving processes in organizations (Proposition 4), intelligent decision support systems can be configured.
Definition 4 (Intelligent Decision Support Systems). A decision support system (DSS) is said to be intelligent when it is constructed on theoretical foundations with axiomatic properties.
A conceptual structure of the intelligent DSS (IDSS) has been proposed in a generaá form, com-posed of the three phases according to the intrinsic properties of the DSS (Seo and Nishizaki, 1991). Due to the intelligent property of the DSS, each phase is composed of three stages sequentially which correspond to the decision processes from the originál, primitive recognition of problems to more advanced, illuminated recognition.
Objective-oriented analysis is performed for forming the constructive purpose of an organiza-tion with assistance of IDSS. Fig. 10 depicts a configuraorganiza-tion for the case of multiattribute utility
analysis. As an ultimate aim of this system, the managerial rationality in Proposition 7 is sought in the Phase III by the problem owner in an organization. A primitive recognition of an objectives' complex is enlightened by the objectives' analysis with the assistance of IDSS in Phases I and II. In Celi 9 in the Elaborated Stage of Phase III, the utility balance is checked in terms of the factor attributes and the partitions to their subattributes. An overall purpose established inthis stage is the creative purpose whose content is carefully examined from the long run managerial point of view. For internal stability which is the critical element here, the conflict finding and solving processes should be embedded in Celi 10. The managerial rationality will be checked in the hazardous envi-ronments in"Cell 11, which is examined in practice. If the organization is found to be evolutionary and stable, then it is effective in the long run and the managerial rationality requirement is satisfied.
Fig. 10 Objectives analysis with the intelligent DSS: Multiattribute utility analysis Source: own.
Bibliography
[1] Bogdan L., Straszak A., StudziĔski J., Poland 21st Century Infrastructure for „Global Great Transition”(Eco – Info – Communalism) Scenarios Looking for Future System Research Solutions, Wyd. Kobe, Japan 2005.
[2] Florida R. Who’s Your City. Basic Books New York 2008.
[3] Ogle R., Smart world, Breakthrough creativity and the new science of ideas. Wyd. Harvard Business School press, Boston 2008.
[4] Prahalad C. K., Krishnan M.S., The new age of innovation. Wyd. McGraw-Hill, New York. 2008.
[5] Senge P.M., The fifth discipline. The art. And practice of learning organization.Wyd. Dou-bleday Publishing 1990.
[6] Seo F., Decision Support for Purposeful Management Systems in Transition to Advanced Market Economy [w] OwsiĔski J. W., StefaĔski J., Straszak A., Transistion to Advanced Market Economy. Strategic options, modeling approaches and operational research perspec-tives, Warsaw 1992.
[7] Special report, The education race. 40 pages. Wyd. Newsweek, USA 18.08.2008.
[8] Straszak A. The R&D and Higher ED World Race. International Conference “Education, Science and Economist of Universities. Integration to International Educational Area”Płock 2008.
[9] Straszak A., Człowiek w pierwszym stuleciu trzeciego tysiąclecia w perpektywie naukl cyber-netycznych, informacyjnych i systemach, w pracy zb. Pod red. Plopy, Człowiek u progu III tysiąclecia. Wyd. EUH-E, Elbląg 2007.
[10] Straszak A., Infopedagogika w wysoce zinformatyzowanych szkołach i uczelniach XXI wieku. Wyd. Oficyna Szkoáy WyĪszej im Pawáa Wáodkowica w Páock, ToruĔ-Páock 2007.
[11] Straszak A., Ksztaácenie ustawiczne – Możliwości i ograniczenia kształcenia ustawicznego imperatyw systemowy w społeczeństwie informacyjnym opartym na wiedzy. Wyd. Towarzy-stwo Naukowe Páockie, Páock 2008.
[12] Straszak A., Sieciowa infrastruktura edukacyjna społeczeństwa informacyjnego i gospodarki cyfrowej. Wyd. A. Marszaáek, ToruĔ 2002.
[13] Straszak A., Strategia LizboĔska UE. Kluczowy czynnik tworzenia się społeczeństwa wiedzy i gospodarki opartej na wiedzy w Polsce. Wyd. Bydgoszcz, PSZW Studia i Materiaáy, 2005. [14] Tapscott D, Williams D. A., Wikinomics, How Mass Collaboration Change Everything.
Wyd. Portfolio, USA 2008.
[15] Tapscott D., Digital Economy. Promise and Peril in the Age of Networked Intelligence. Wyd. McGraw-Hill, New York 1996.
[16] Toffler A., Toffler H., Revolutionary Wealth. Wyd. Alfred A. Knoph, New York 2006, [17] www.batelle.org Reports on world R&D 2006/2010.
INTELIGENTNA SPECJALIZACJA REGIONÓW, SUBREGIONÓW I META REGIONÓW
Streszczenie
Polska w okresie lat 2014–2020 będzie zobowiązana jako beneficjent względnie dużych funduszy unii europejskiej bardziej ściśle przestrzegać celów i zadań strategii EU 2020. Nie przestrzeganie przez Polskę od 2004 roku strategii lizbońskiej spowo-dowało bardzo złe perspektywy dla Polski w latach 2030–2060. Przedstawiono autor-ską propozycję wprowadzania meta funkcjonalnych regionów w Polsce, dla lepszej realizacji Strategii EU2020
Sáowa kluczowe: Ğwiatowy wyĞcig B+R, strategia LizboĔska, strategia UE 2020, inteligentna specjalizacja w regionach, subregionach i meta regionach
Andrzej Straszak Tomasz Kruszewski Faculty of Management Faculty of Computer Science
Pawel Wlodkowic University College in Plock al. KiliĔskiego 12, 09-402 Páock
