аЯрЁБс>ўџ DEўџџџCџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџмЅhcр e€ЂjД„“g€L€LLƒLƒLƒLƒLƒ`ƒ`ƒ`ƒ`ƒ`ƒ lƒ vƒ:`ƒЬƒ>АƒДƒЪƒЪƒЪƒЪƒЪƒЪƒЪƒЬƒЬƒЬƒЬƒЬƒЬƒ „Xb„RЬƒLƒЪƒ67 ЪƒЪƒЪƒЪƒЬƒЪƒLƒLƒЪƒАƒЪƒЪƒЪƒЪƒLƒЪƒLƒЪƒЪƒp–;|7LЦ`ƒ`ƒLƒLƒLƒLƒЪƒЪƒЪƒЪƒ Developing a Knowledge Economy in Scotland: Lessons from the Operation of the LINK Programme Margaret Cuthbert May 2001 Introduction The devolution settlement has produced a division of powers between the Scottish Parliament and Westminster that cuts across the boundaries of certain key policy areas. One such area is the development of the knowledge-based economy. Here, powers on trade and industry, finance, the economy, and employment are reserved to Westminster. On the other hand, relevant powers that are devolved are education and enterprise. Given this division, it is appropriate to ask how effectively the government’s strategy to create and develop a knowledge-based economy in Scotland is operating, and whether there is effective co-ordination between reserved and devolved powers in this area. This article examines this question by studying the operation of one of the government’s main instruments for the development of the knowledge economy, namely the LINK programme. Our findings are that Scottish industry involvement in the LINK programme is low, both in terms of what might be expected given the size of our high and medium high technology sectors, and in terms of our university participation in the programme. A number of potential reasons for this low participation are put forward here. While there are a number of contributory factors, our conclusion is that the current division of powers between the two governments does not necessarily assist the development of a knowledge economy in Scotland, and that changes are required to improve the situation. Some possible changes are considered. The Knowledge Based Economy We begin by examining what a knowledge economy is, and give relevant background on the knowledge-based economy in Scotland. A useful definition of a knowledge economy was given by the Department of Trade and Industry, 1998, "A knowledge-driven economy is one in which the generation and exploitation of knowledge play the predominant part in the creation of wealth". [1] Traditionally, neo-classical economics recognised only two factors of production: labour and capital. Knowledge, productivity, education, and intellectual capital were all regarded as exogenous factors: that is, falling outside the system. New Growth Theory regards technology (and the knowledge on which it is based) as an intrinsic part of the economic system. In this sense, knowledge is the third factor of production in leading economies. (Romer, 1986; 1990) [2] The knowledge economy is generally regarded as comprising the following three elements: the building of the science research base, the production of well qualified professionals and technicians, and a good interaction between firms and the science base to ensure that firms maximise their opportunities to become fully competitive. It is generally agreed that any policy focusing on one of these ingredients independently of the others is likely to have limited success in improving a country’s competitive standing. Each stage needs to be working properly, from the generation of ideas to the final sale of the products and services. “Investment in basic research is just one part of the cycle. Knowledge must flow out of the science base into products and services. The Government’s aim, therefore, is to invest in the science base, with measures to open up channels to allow scientific know-how to flow beneficially through to society, into business and jobs,” [3] This is not only a UK policy, but is one which is being actively pursued for Scotland by the Scottish Executive. The report “Scotland: Towards the Knowledge Economy“, [4], and its sequel, the Scottish Executive Report on the Knowledge Economy Cross-Cutting Initiative [5], state clearly the commitment of the Executive to providing a supportive framework for the development of a knowledge based economy in Scotland. As well as outlining support for university based research and measures to improve skills and new firm formation, the report notes that there is much to be gained from a concentration on crucial sectors where Scotland already has business and academic strengths. These include healthcare and life sciences, oil and gas, telecommunications, opto-electronics and semiconductors, software and related e-business. Scottish Enterprise has already adopted such a cluster policy and a National Clusters Liaison Group has been formed. To give an indication of the magnitude of the government support of the knowledge based economy, total spend by the UK government on science, engineering and technology (SET) in 2000-01 was Ѓ6,969 million. This aggregate UK figure includes devolved expenditure in Scotland by the Scottish Executive of Ѓ74 million directly on SET, with a further Ѓ136.7 million through the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council to support the HEI research base. Scotland also has access to those SET programmes that are reserved: and this includes approximately 79% of the DTI budget. While large elements of the SET reserved budgets support the research base in universities and research institutes, increasingly there has been a resolve to assist the flow of ideas into industry. A number of programmes are concerned with encouraging pre competitive industrial research. The LINK programme is recognised in government literature as “the Government’s principal mechanism for promoting pre-competitive research between industry and the research base”. LINK falls within the reserved area. LINK LINK is a government initiative to provide general support, including up to 50% funding, for pre-competitive research involving industry and the UK research base: (research institutes and higher education institutions). Its aim is to encourage industry to invest in further work that will lead to commercially successful products, processes, systems and services. LINK began in 1988, and since 1995, all new LINK programmes address priorities identified by the Foresight steering/sectoral panels. The Panels cover a wide range of activity, for example built environment, defence, materials etc with underpinning themes such as education and sustainable development. They identify market opportunities for business and the emerging capabilities of science, engineering and technology. The information gathered is fed into the decision making process within government departments. The scheme covers five main areas: Electronics / communications / IT Food, Agriculture Biosciences / Medical Materials / Chemicals Energy / Engineering LINK programmes are currently sponsored by a range of government departments -depending on subject area. Within each of the above areas, there are several programmes, and within each programme there are then calls for specific projects, each of which can be sponsored by additional government departments and/or research councils. The role of the sponsor is an important one: First, it allows an individual department or group of departments/research councils to be part of the decision making process in determining which topics will go ahead under LINK. Second, applications are submitted under the programme by partnerships of universities, research institutes and companies. The lead partner is usually a university, and if the academics have difficulty in finding an industrial partner, they are likely to ask for some assistance in so doing from the sponsors. Sponsors play an important role, therefore, both in influencing the area of research and in helping to find industrial partners. Evaluations of the programmes have been favourable, with, for example, the evaluation of the Enhanced Engineering Materials programme showing that the Ѓ10 million government investment generated benefits to industry of Ѓ200 million. The benefits which participating companies can expect from involvement in a LINK programme are listed as: Access to high quality research and leading edge science. Acceleration of the research process and a likely significant reduction in the investment required for each industry partner. Provision of partners with means to create new IP and new and improved products, processes and services. Opportunities for networking and sharing ideas with experts from many fields. Publicity and raised profile for the firm LINK’s Operation Total expenditure by government departments and research councils on LINK was Ѓ285.9 million over the period 1988 to April 2000, with the largest contributors being the DTI and the EPSRC (Engineering and Physical Science Research Council). - “Statistics for Science and Technology in the UK, 2000”. Including industry contributions, expenditure on LINK projects underway or completed was approximately Ѓ530 million by April 2000. Since then, funding awards through LINK have been substantial. In response to priorities identified by Foresight, there are five new LINK programmes. These include the largest ever LINK programme: Applied Genomics, for which the government contribution is around Ѓ67 million. Additionally, two existing LINK programmes have been extended, with government providing a further Ѓ9.5 million. For the present research paper, the Department of Trade and Industry have provided information that they have collated on the operation of LINK. The number of collaborators, that is individual institutions, firms, etc. that have taken part in LINK programmes, are as follows: LINK Collaborators by Location Type of InstitutionUKNot knownScotlandScotland as % of known LocationsLarge enterprise45227874.0 - foreign owned1339412.6Small/medium enterprise803463308.8 - foreign owned634716.3Enterprises, size unknown5894971010.8Higher education institutions10901311.9Other research base institutions10324911.4Charities1511125.0Other bodies863147.3Total23531445768.4 The first thing to note from the table is the very large number of “not-knowns” with regard to location. From the DTI’s point of view this appears to be reasonable: “We do not hold information centrally on where projects originate nor where their research is carried out. LINK aims at scientific excellence so geographical factors are irrelevant”. (DTI). While this point of view may be appropriate to the DTI from a UK standpoint, the Scottish Executive should ideally have this information to adequately discharge its industrial policy. The advice given by the DTI in working with the above data was to subtract the not-knowns from the UK figures. “This assumes we are no less likely to know if a collaborator is Scottish than if it is from anywhere else in the UK. This seems a fair assumption”. (DTI) On this basis Scotland has 7.4% of all known- location enterprise collaborators, and 4% of large collaborators. Higher Education Institutions represent 11.9% of all UK HEI collaborators: all universities in Scotland have participated in LINK schemes. Collaborators can take part in several projects. The table below shows the number of collaborations that have taken place through LINK. Here Scotland has 4.5% of enterprise collaborations where the geographical location has been recorded. Given that Scotland has 7.4% of the number of firms collaborating, the lower percentage of collaborations shows that the average number of collaborations per firm involved in LINK in Scotland is less than that for firms in the UK as a whole. For large enterprises, Scottish firms represent only 1.3% of known-location collaborations, and among foreign owned large enterprises, it is less than 1%. LINK Collaborations by location (i.e. collaborator times their projects) Type of collaborationUKNot knownScotlandScotland as % of firms of known locationLarge enterprise139980081.3 foreign owned46725920.96Small/medium enterprise1155622458.4foreign owned1116912.3Enterprises, size unknown705591119.6Higher education institutions148401469.8Other research base institutions542386012.3Charities2116120.0Other bodies24513065.2Total612925252807.8 In contrast to the small percentages of Scottish based business participation in LINK collaborations, the Scottish university sector has been reasonably involved: its 146 collaborations represent 9.8% of all UK HEI collaborations. However, while the average performance per Scottish university is 11 or more projects, the range is from Edinburgh University which has 27 to Abertay, Dundee, Paisley and Glasgow Caledonian which each have one. The very large number of collaborations where the location is unknown is unsatisfactory from the point of view of this study. In order to improve confidence in the resulting statistics it was necessary to gather ancillary information. To obtain more clarification, further information was sought from two of the largest industrially linked research councils: EPSRC and BBSRC. Their information is as follows: EPSRC The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), which is the largest of the government’s research councils, had a spend of Ѓ91 million on LINK projects to April 2000. Note that in money terms, EPSRC support in LINK is around 35% of the total LINK spend by government departments. EPSRC holds information on the numbers of companies and total number of collaborations in its projects. The following table shows the numbers of firms collaborating in LINK and the number of collaborations since their records began. EPSRC UK Scotland Percent LINK Companies 501 20 4.0 LINK Collaborations 751 26 3.5 The figure of 4.0% for collaborators is substantially lower than the estimate from the DTI of 7.4% for Scottish collaborators which was based on DTI data excluding “not-knowns”. For collaborations, the figure of 3.5% is also lower than that based on DTI data (4.5%). There is nothing in this EPSRC data therefore to suggest that the DTI figures under-estimate Scottish collaboration. If anything, they suggest that the DTI figures may give an over-estimate. It is also relevant to note that, it is projects in the fields of electronics, (including opto-electronics), communications, IT, engineering, and materials which are the areas supported by EPSRC. These are some of the main industry clusters in Scotland’s economic strategy, yet the representation by Scottish firms in the projects is only 3.5%. BBSRC From information on BBSRC company collaborations in LINK, 153 collaborations took place between May 1996 and June 2000. The numbers include all non-research base partners. Here again, the data held had “address unknown” in 60% of the cases, but as the company names and other information was supplied it was possible to find addresses for most of the cases. Of the total, 5 of the collaborations were in Scotland and 138 in the rest of UK with 10 still unknown; that is collaboration by companies in Scotland represented 3.5% of the total UK known address collaborations. This estimate is the same as that for the EPSRC collaborations. To summarise, the data from the two main research councils supporting industry LINK projects confirm the low participation rates of firms based in Scotland in the UK LINK programmes. If anything, they suggest that the figures from the DTI are an over estimate. Interpretation The factual evidence above suggests that participation by firms based in Scotland in the LINK programme is low. The natural question to ask is why this is the case. We explore here a number of possibilities as to why there appears to be a relative failure by companies in Scotland to take part in this assisted programme, and consider the following: Is the low participation simply a reflection of the relative number of companies in Scotland that have the capacity to use LINK? Does it reflect a lack of R&D in Scottish industry? Is there a lack of university based partners in Scotland? Is there a lack of networking and lack of assistance in finding partners in Scotland? Are the projects specified within the main themes relevant to Scottish industry? Is the low participation simply a reflection of the relative lack of capacity in Scotland to use LINK? The latest Regional Competitiveness Indicators from the DTI, August 2000, show the number and percentage of employee jobs in high and medium high technology sectors in 1998. As the table below shows, employee in Scotland represented 7.2% of all GB employees in these sectors. As a proxy indicator of industry’s capacity to use LINK in Scotland, these figures would suggest that Scotland does indeed have a lower concentration on high and medium high technology than Britain as a whole, however, the difference in concentration is small. Thus, while lack of capacity may be a contributory factor, it is not likely to be the major factor for Scottish business’ poor performance in LINK. Employee jobs in high and medium high technology sectors 1998 Great BritainScotlandScotland asNumbers (‘000)PercentNumbers (‘000)Percent% of GBEmployees1595.76.8114.25.67.2 Does it reflect a lack of R&D in Scottish industry? The latest published figures by the DTI on business enterprise research and development for manufacturing production as a percentage of gross value added are for 1997 and show Scotland’s percentage as 1.9% relative to a UK figure of 5.1%. ONS statistics on business expenditure on R&D as a percentage of GDP show Scotland at 0.6% in 1998 compared with a UK average of 1.2%. And, in expenditure statistics on R&D performed in UK businesses in 1998, Scotland’s share of R&D expenditure is 3.2%. All of these indicators show evidence of a serious lack of R&D in Scottish industry. Is there a lack of university based partners in Scotland? Our analysis shows that the higher education institutions in Scotland are active players in LINK and have far greater relative involvement in LINK as measured by the percentage of Scottish based university collaborations in total UK university LINK collaborations compared with the percentage of industry collaborations from Scotland. Scottish businesses are recorded as having been involved in 66 LINK collaborations, and universities and other research institutions in Scotland in 206 collaborations. Even allowing for a proportionate share of “address unknown” to be Scottish firms, there is clear evidence that the Scottish academic research base is turning to companies in other parts of the UK for LINK partnerships. Is there a lack of networking and lack of assistance in finding partners in Scotland? As the programme is a reserved matter, the Industry Department in the Scottish Executive plays no active role. Firms that do enquire are signposted to the DTI website. A usual route into participation in LINK however is through the universities. Researchers in University departments generally bring the partnerships together and it is here that sponsors can play a crucial role in helping them find partners. There is limited involvement by the Scottish Executive as sponsors in the LINK programme. Among all LINK projects that are currently “open” to potential collaborators, the pattern of Scottish Executive departments’ involvement is as follows: Biosciences / Medical: there are five major programmes covering topics such as applied genomics, analytical biotechnology, and genetic and environmental interactions in health. There is no Scottish Executive sponsorship. Electronics / Communications /IT: there are seven programmes with the Scottish Executive providing sponsorship in one: mobile phones and health. Energy/Engineering: there are seven programmes, with no sponsorship by the Scottish Executive. These cover, for example, sustainable technologies, oil and gas extraction, and integration in design and construction. Food /Agriculture: Of the nine open programmes, Scottish Departments assist in sponsoring three, with a further possible interest in five others on a project by project basis. The food /agriculture LINK programme includes aquaculture, sustainable livestock production, and sustainable arable production. Are the projects specified within the main themes relevant to Scottish industry? Scottish Enterprise has been pursuing a cluster policy with four clusters: Oil and Gas, Food, Semi-conductors and Biotechnology. Clustering is regarded as one method whereby companies can form beneficial relationships with other businesses, their suppliers, and the wider community, particularly research and education. These relationships can improve innovation capability, the rate of new company start-up, the growth of existing businesses and the ability to win knowledge-based inward investment. The task force on the knowledge economy noted that, “As a small economy, Scotland cannot develop the necessary critical mass and support the infrastructure necessary for a wide range of unrelated industries. It is not therefore possible for Scotland to be competitive in all clusters. This makes it vital that we have research strengths in Scottish HEIs and research institutes that are linked as closely as possible to those areas of business in which Scotland can compete most effectively.” However, as noted above, the Scottish Executive departments play a very limited part in contributing to programme selection or project selection within LINK programmes in energy/ engineering, biosciences/medical and electronics/ communications/IT. Thus while the broad programme areas in LINK are relevant to Scotland’s industrial policy, the required link to enable: Fashioning relevant projects Assisting in forming collaborative ventures with other government departments and research councils under LINK Assisting in forming local LINK partnerships between firms and universities in Scotland has rarely been in existence. Overall, a picture emerges in Scotland of poor participation by businesses in LINK. While there is a fairly substantial medium and high technology sector, there is relatively little R&D carried out by business. The higher education sector is collaborating in LINK principally with businesses in other parts of the UK. There is poor networking and a lack of assistance to business in finding HEI and other partners, and there is very limited involvement by Scottish Executive departments in the selection of LINK programmes and in project selection within programmes. Policy Implications These findings have a number of implications for the design of policy aimed at improving the knowledge economy in Scotland. LINK programmes do not appear to be working efficiently with the Scottish Executive strategy for a knowledge economy. There needs to be both greater Scottish involvement at decision making stages in the UK and greater focus on businesses in Scotland, especially in the clusters defined by Scotland’s economic strategy. Based on our findings, we suggest the following. First, as a pre requisite in understanding how the LINK programme might be working in Scotland, the Scottish Executive should encourage the DTI and Research Councils to improve their data bases to record location. It is difficult to imagine how we can have a joined up policy for a knowledge economy without such basic information. Second, there needs to be greater involvement by Scottish Executive departments in various aspects of this reserved programme. This should include direct involvement in programme selection and project selection within programmes to maximise the opportunity of synergy between government assisted pre-competitive research and the Scottish Executive’s cluster policy. Third, the Scottish Executive needs to consider how it can improve networking in Scotland, particularly in linking universities and businesses for such pre-competitive research. Fourth, LINK is not going to strengthen the industrial research base in Scotland if many firms in Scotland do not have the research capacity to make use of it. If therefore, the low R&D in Scotland is one of the main factors contributing to the low performance of LINK, then it is time to consider how to improve the level of R&D, and to bring in complementary pre-LINK programmes specifically for businesses in Scotland to address this market failure. However, a large part of such support is still a reserved matter. At present, rather than helping to remedy the low rate of R&D in Scotland, the LINK programme is in a sense reinforcing it, as it assists those areas that are receptive to R&D. As LINK is attracting Scottish universities and research institutions, this means that they are turning to companies in other parts of the UK to form LINK partnerships. This again shows either a failure of current businesses in Scotland in R&D or a failure of linkage. Either way, any financial assistance given by the Scottish Executive to higher education institutions to develop business partnerships in research is more likely strengthen business elsewhere until major efforts are made to put Scottish business in a position to benefit from the strengthening of the higher education sector. How well Scotland accesses funding which is reserved is crucial, not only for the Higher Education Institutions in Scotland, but for the competitive position of businesses in Scotland. The overall level of funding for science, engineering and technology in the UK has been shown to be large, and most is reserved. Analysis of this one flagship programme for pre-competitive research shows the poor involvement of Scottish businesses, and we suggest that this is in part due to the lack of involvement of the Scottish Executive in this reserved matter. If this poor involvement were repeated in other SET reserved areas, then Scottish business and the knowledge economy would be being ill-served. There is some evidence that this may be the case. For example, among all EPSRC collaborative programmes recorded in their data base, Scottish businesses make up only 4.3% of the total of all UK business collaborations. [1] Department of Trade and Industry, 1998 [2] Romer, Paul, "Science, Economic Growth, and Public Policy," with Richard R. Nelson, in Technology, R&D, and the Economy, Bruce L. R. Smith and Claude E. Barfield (eds.), Washington: Brookings Institution and American Enterprise Institute, 1996. [3] Excellence and Opportunity: A Science and Innovation Policy for the 21st century, Department of Trade and Industry. Chapter 1. [4] Scotland: Towards the Knowledge Economy, Scottish Office, 1999 [5] Report on the Knowledge Economy Cross-Cutting Initiative, the Scottish Executive, 2001 PAGE 9 Ё™Є‚.ЅЦAІЇЈ Љ Њ_{рсZ [ П +7notЖ!R#c#Ў'Э'ф'ю'(ѕ(і(^)v)w)0d0К02‹7Œ7Њ7ь7;;;~<œ>Њ>­> @ЂA BЗDѕDzEЎEёG+HKVKтMWQZQЋQŽU;ZOZЖdЗdvhєij’j“j”jšj›jœjjžjЁjЂjОjќњњњњїђњњ№њьњ№ќ№ќњњќњ№ќњњќњњњїчїњфњќњфњфњфњфњсњњђњлйлелйгuPaP uDPU^Vc U^bcU^cUPUcbccUcL-^_qz{ˆрсZ [ w є ы П 78mnotс +=Si~їc L!Ж!§§§§њњјієјєјієєєёяєєјэєєШШШШШєєєє$ h˜ў 4џhxЗh !Ж!№!o"и"&#P#Q#R#c#—&˜&Ќ'Ў'Э'с'ф'ю'ї'(((*(.(2(4(8(9(J(N(Q(S(W(X(p(кккккиеиеиеигааЭаааЙаааааЙаааааЙаИlЛ О† є™”Ќ % h˜ў 4џhxЗh!p(t(x({((€(‘(”(—(™((ž(И(М(Р(У(Ш(Щ(ч(ы(э(№(ѕ(і())) )%)&)0)3)6)8)=)>)K)N)Q)S)W)X)Y)§§§§щ§§§§§щ§§§§§щ§§§§§щ§§§§§щ§§§§§щ§§§§§щ§ИlЛ О† є™”Ќ *Y)Z)[)\)])^)d)i)n)q)u)v)w)“+”+›-œ-00d0z0}0‡00Й0К0Ы0а0д0ж0к0л0ы0я0ѓ0ѕ0њ0ћ0§§§§щ§§§§§щчхххххх󧧧§§Я§§§§§Я§§§§§ЯИlЛ О”џЁ &"Ќ ИlЛ О† є™”Ќ %ћ01111#1$1216191;1?1@1Z1^1b1e1i1j1ˆ111“1—1˜1Й1Н1Р1У1Ш1Щ1г1ж1й1л1р1с1ю1ђ1і1ј1ќ1§1§§§§§щ§§§§§щ§§§§§щ§§§§§щ§§§§§щ§§§§§щ§§§§§щИlЛ О”џЁ &"Ќ *§1ў1џ12222 2222222и3й3r5s5y5‹7Œ7Њ7Ш7ы7ь7З9;;;–=›>œ>­> @§§§§§щ§§§§§щччччхучсзззсччсуддддч & ' ( ) * ИlЛ О”џЁ &"Ќ ! @Œ@Р@њ@PAЁAЂA BЖDѕDіDEEEEEEE,E4ECEKESETE^EeEiEoEsEwExEyEzEЎE№GкккккззззггггггОггггггОггггггОззззИlЛ О”џќф B‡К!% а0§ 4€hx)а"№GёG+HўJKVKтMПNPO'PWQYQZQЋQUŽUўVWŠWтWXX9Z;ZOZ \АaБaЖdЗdJhKh§§§§§ћжжжжд⧧➭­­ћћћћћћћћћ§ћћ$ h˜ў 4џhxЗh$ h˜ў 4џhxЗhKhvhqiєi7j’j“jžjŸj jЁjЂjўќљќќќѓяќќќh`јџ K@ёџNormala $@$ Heading 1Uc&@& Heading 2^bc"@" Heading 3Uc$@$ Heading 4Uc"@" Heading 5c$@$ Heading 6^c$@$ Heading 7U^c"@" Heading 8bc" @" Heading 9 ^c"A@ђџЁ"Default Paragraph Font B@ђ Body TextcўO Body Text 2U*ўO* BlockquotehhddcўO" Body Text 3ўOЂ1 Hyperlink^bўOЂAEmphasisV$ўOR$ Document Map/ ]ўOЂaStrongU$ўO$Definition Termc @‚ Footer 9r )@Ђ‘ Page Number ўO H2 ddUc$ @В Header 9r ЂgЂjџџџџ Оj6Ж!p(Y)ћ0§1 @№GKhЂj789:;<=>?Ђg !”џ•€џ@>Times New Roman Symbol "Arial #Tahoma"€№аhЄЃ&ЄЃ&mtU&ћgU+ƒЖ№RDeveloping a Knowledge Economy:margaret cuthbertJ & M Cuthbert  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABўџџџ§џџџGўџџџOўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџRoot Entryџџџџџџџџ РFp–;|7LЦF€WordDocumentџџџџД„CompObjџџџџџџџџџџџџjSummaryInformation(џџџџџџџџфўџџџ ўџџџ ўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџўџ џџџџ РFMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.8є9Вqўџр…ŸђљOhЋ‘+'Гй0Д˜ Шд№ќ 0< d p | ˆ”œЄЌф Developing a Knowledge Economy:1Ш†margaret cuthbert;ъrхБ5ўNormal J & M Cuthbertt20.Microsoft WoDocumentSummaryInformation8џџџџџџџџџџџџ шџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџўџ џџџџ РFMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.8є9Вq€ф mc economicsЖ+  Developing a Knowledge Economy:rd for Windows 95@Œ†G@Жь˜мР@@hW7LЦ@@hW7LЦћgUўџеЭеœ.“—+,љЎ0И@H`h px €ф mc economicsЖ+  Developing a Knowledge Economy: