Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2409.13316

Why do we need to complement the European Union Regional Innovation Scoreboard with an artificial intelligence tool for what-if policy analysis?

Vincenzo Lanzetta·Cristina Ponsiglione
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The European Union Regional Innovation Scoreboard (EURIS) is currently and broadly used for the definition of regional innovation policies by European policymakers; it is a regional innovation measuring tool for the analysis of each specific innovation indicator, from which it is possible to analyze the overtime evolution of each regional innovation indicator; according to the importance of the European Union Regional Innovation Scoreboard for innovation policy purposes, we state that European regional policymakers need integrative and synergistic methodological tools, with respect to the EURIS one, for innovation policy purposes. We state the need to integrate the current methodology of the European Regional Innovation Scoreboard with a Factorial K-means (FKM) tool for grouping purposes, and with a neural network (NN) tool for performing what-if policy analyses. Experimental results suggested that our proposed grouping/labeling methodologies are able to develop more compact groups, resulting in regions having better similarities, than the ones developed by the EURIS methodology. Experimental simulations, within the framework of our proposed what-if tool, highlight the potential usefulness of our methodological tool (neural network-based) for the understanding of the potential effectiveness of each possible and specific regional innovation policy to be implemented. We claim that our proposed FKM-NN tool could be used, by regional innovation policymakers, as a very effective synergistic instrument of the European Union Regional Innovation Scoreboard.

Explore related subjects

econ.GNq-fin.EC

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Vincenzo Lanzetta, Cristina Ponsiglione. 2025-06-14. Why do we need to complement the European Union Regional Innovation Scoreboard with an artificial intelligence tool for what-if policy analysis?. https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.13316

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Uncertain and Asymmetric Forecasts

Survey density forecasts are summarized by their second and third moments, read as uncertainty and as the balance of risks. Neither can be read on its own. In the ECB Survey of Professional Forecasters the variance of an individual inflation density rises with the distance of that forecaster's central forecast from the official target, flat below it and rising above, so that raw dispersion mixes belief imprecision with the arithmetic of the level; and a third moment computed over a handful of bins is too noisy to identify directional risk unless it is read together with the location of the density. This paper builds, from the reported bins up, two measures that repair these defects. Normalized Uncertainty divides a density's standard deviation by the one the fitted variance-distance envelope predicts at the observed distance. Asymmetry Coherence retains directional risk only where the sign of the reported asymmetry agrees with the sign of the median's deviation from the target, weighted by that agreement. Both are carried to growth densities, where the reference is estimated rather than announced; to a simulation in which the latent objects are known; and to the US Survey of Professional Forecasters.

econ.GN↗
arXiv2026

Critical Mathematical Economics and Progressive Computer Science

The aim of this article is to present elements and discuss the potential of a research program at the intersection between mathematics and heterodox economics, which we call Criticial Mathematical Economics (CME). We propose to focus on the mathematical and model-theoretic foundations of controversies in economic policy, and aim at providing an entrance to the literature as an invitation to mathematicians that are potentially interested in such a project. From our point of view, mathematics has been partly misused in mainstream economics to justify `unregulated markets'. We identify two key parts of CME, which leads to a natural structure of this article: The first part focusses on an analysis and critique of mathematical models used in mainstream economics, like e.g. the Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE) in Macroeconomics and the so-called ``Sonnenschein-Mantel-Debreu''-Theorems. The aim of the second part is to improve and extend heterodox models using ingredients from modern mathematics and computer science, a method with strong relation to Complexity Economics. We exemplify this idea by describing how methods from Non-Linear Dynamics have been used in Post-Keynesian Macroeconomics', and also discuss (Pseudo-) Goodwin cycles and possible Micro- and Mesofoundations. Finally, we outline in which areas a collaboration between mathematicians and heterodox economists could be most promising, and discuss both existing projects in such a direction as well as areas where new models for policy advice are most needed. In an outlook, we discuss the role of (ecological) data, AI and the need for what we call Progressive Computer Science.

econ.GN↗
arXiv2026

Sovereign Grassroots Currencies: A CBDC Architecture for Credit and Monetary Policy (Full Version)

A Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) is central-bank money in digital form, held by the public. Leading designs have two limitations: conversion from bank deposits into CBDC can accelerate deposit flight, requiring safeguards, and the CBDC stays outside credit creation and monetary-policy operations. Here we present a CBDC architecture based on grassroots currencies that overcomes these limitations. The architecture has three components: (1) Money: sovereign grassroots coins, which are digital debts of one unit of fiat currency issued by the central bank, constituting a direct CBDC; (2) Credit and Liquidity: non-sovereign grassroots coins, which are digital debts of one unit of the same fiat currency, redeemable at par, that can be issued by any person, natural or legal, thus adding credit; and (3) Interest: grassroots bonds, sovereign and non-sovereign, adding maturity and thus interest, standard banking instruments, and the central bank's instruments of monetary policy. The central bank can therefore lend, absorb liquidity, set its rates and buy and sell securities in the coins and bonds the public holds, choosing the counterparties and terms of its credit operations, and without converting bank deposits into newly issued central bank money on demand. We prove that the arbitrage-free price of any non-sovereign grassroots coin whose issuer redeems it on demand is one unit of the fiat currency. The central bank can choose to deal with any counterparty, not just banks, and we argue that the central bank's interest rates on lending and bonds bound from above and below the corresponding interest rates of its counterparties. Sovereign and non-sovereign grassroots coins and bonds have been implemented and tested on a small scale.

econ.GN↗