European Research Area progress report 2018 : country profile : Latvia.
Date: 2019-02-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation
Subjects: EU research policy, Latvia, innovation, organisation of research, report, research and development, research policy, research programme

EUROPEAN  
RESEARCH  
AREA 

Progress Report 2018 

Country Profile 
LATVIA

 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 
Directorate A — Policy Development and Coordination 
Unit A2 — Research and Innovation Strategy 

Contact: 
E-mail:  

Arie Van Der Zwan 
Arie.VAN-DER-ZWAN@ec.europa.eu 
RTD-PUBLICATIONS@ec.europa.eu 

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

EUROPE DIRECT is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union 

Freephone number (*): 
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you) 

LEGAL NOTICE 

Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is  
responsible for the use which might be made of the following information. 

The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and do not  
necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission. 

More information on the European Union is available on the internet (http://europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2019. 

PDF  

ISBN 978-92-79-99855-3 

doi:10.2777/662419 

KI-04-19-109-EN-N 

© European Union, 2019. 
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COUNTRY SNAPSHOT 

Country profile: Latvia 

Indicator

Performance

Progress since ERA monitoring 2016

Reference
year

Score

Cluster

Lead/Gap
(Δ %)

EU-28

Reference
Period

CAGR

Lead/Gap
(Δ % pt)

EU-28

Trend
(2007-18)

Name

Adjusted Research Excellence Indicator (AREI)

GBARD as share of GDP

EIS Summary Innovation Index (SII)

A - GBARD to transnatl coop (EUR/researcher)

A - C ollab papers w/ERA per 1 000 researchers

A - Public-to-public partnerships (EUR/researcher)

B - Roadmap for ESFRI projects

2016

2017

2017

2016

2016

2016

B - Participation in ESFRI Projects and Landmarks (combined)

2018

B - Participation in developing ESFRI Projects

B - Participation in operational ESFRI Landmarks

EURAXESS job ads per 1 000 researchers

Open, transparent, merit-based hiring process

Share of doctoral students from EU countries

Share of women among Grade A in HES

Gender dimension in research content

Share of female PhD graduates

A - Firms coop with univ, gov, res inst

A - Firms coop with univ

A - Firms coop with gov, res inst

A - Share of public R&D funded privately

A - Public-private collab papers per capita

B - Share of papers in Open Access (Total)

B - Share of papers in Open Access (Gold)

B - Share of papers in Open Access (Green)

B - Share life science papers with OA dataset(s)

Collab papers w/non-ERA per 1 000 researchers

Share of doctoral students from outside EU

Share med & high tech product export

Share Knowledge intensive service export

2018

2018

2016

2016

2016

2016

2014-17(R)

2016

2014

2014

2014

2015

2017

2016

2016

2016

2017

2016

2016

2017

2016

1

y
t
i
r
o

i
r
P

2

y
t
i
r
o

i
r
P

3

y
t
i
r
o

i
r
P

4

y
t
i
r
o

i
r
P

5

y
t
i
r
o
i
r
P

6

y
t
i
r
o

i
r
P

19.6

0.22%

0.285

856

40

2,070

13%

17%

11%

7.4

73%

6.2%

41%

0.98

58%

8.1%

14.4%

1.0

37.8%

22.3%

23.8%

1.2%

14

5.2%

35%

52%

3

4

3

3

4

1

3

3

3

3

1

3

1

3

1

4

-56

-65

-43

-77

-43

271

-63

-43

-71

-82

12

-13

75

-6

21

-46

Not computed

Not computed

1

3

3

3

3

3

4

3

3

3

107

-97

-23

-26

-27

-53

-74

-63

-39

-24

45.0

0.63%

0.504

3,739

71

558

2013-16

2014-17

2015-17

3.3%

11.1%

-1.6%

0.1

12.8

-3.5

2014-16

-8.8%

-12.7

2014-16

2014-16

17.1%

18.3%

13.8

17.7

3.2%

-1.7%

1.9%

3.9%

3.3%

0.7%

No national roadmap in place

35%

29%

37%

42.1

65%

7.1%

24%

1.05

48%

15.0%

7.0%

40.9

49.3%

30.2%

32.5%

2.6%

54

13.9%

57%

69%

2016-18

2016-18

2016-18

:

:

:

:

:

:

15.0%

18.6%

11.3%

2014-16

65.7%

70.7

-5.0%

2012-16

2013-16

2014-16

2011-14 to 2014-17(R)

2013-16

2012-14

2012-14

2013-15

2014-17

2013-17

2014-16

2013-16

2015-17

2014-16

8.1%

28.5%

6.3%

14.7%

0.2%

0.6

24.6

5.3

12.2

-0.2

Not computed

-2.9%

-11.1%

1.5%

2.4%

-3.5

-15.1

2.7

2.0

Not computed

Not computed

Not computed

-9.6%

35.5%

20.6%

0.1%

5.5%

-12.2

31.1

16.8

-0.4

4.8

7.5%

3.9%

1.0%

2.5%

0.4%

0.7%

4.0%

-1.2%

0.4%

2.6%

4.4%

3.8%

0.4%

0.6%

Note: 

(:) = missing data, more notes and flags can be found in the “Annex: Methodological notes”. 
(R) = rolling averages (e.g. average scores across 2007–2010, 2008–2011… 2014–2017) have been used to measure performance and growth due to pronounced 
short-term fluctuations. 
Refer to the “Annex: Guide to reading the quantitative results tables (country snapshots)” for guidance in interpreting the data presented above. 
Further information on the presented indicators is available in the 2018 ERA Monitoring Handbook. 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country profile: Latvia 

COUNTRY NARRATIVE  

Summary  

Overall, Latvia’s performances were unequal, with scores on five individual indicators placing the 
country well above ERA average (Cluster 1), the bulk of scores falling below ERA average (Cluster 
3),  and  the  rest  well  below  (Cluster  4).  Latvia  did  not  obtain  a  score  that  would  have  placed  it 
just above ERA average (Cluster 2). 

Given  this  structure  of  performances,  two  large  groups  of  priorities  were  delineated  based  on 
Latvia’s  performances.  The  first  is  made  up  of  priorities  with  one  or  more  positions  well  above 
ERA  average  (Cluster  1):  Priority  2a  (Transnational  cooperation),  Priority  3  (An  open  labour 
market for researchers), Priority 4 (Gender equality and gender mainstreaming in research) and 
Priority 5a (Knowledge transfer). Yearly increases in scores, stronger than the EU-28 trends, were 
found  across  these  priorities  generally,  punctuated  by  some  lost  ground  on  the  headline 
indicators of Priorities 2a and 5a. 

The second group was made up of Priority 1 (More effective national research systems), Priority 
2b  (Make  optimal  use  of  public  investments  in  research  infrastructures),  Priority  5b  (Open 
access),  and  Priority  6  (International  collaboration).  The  scores  obtained  in  these  priorities  put 
Latvia below or well below ERA average. Here again, trends in short-term changes were generally 
made up of yearly increases, quite consistently across indicators in Priority 6. 

An  analysis  of  progress  regarding  the  implementation  of  the  ERA  National  Action  Plan  was 
included as part of the country profile. Overall Latvia has achieved some of the goals set in their 
NAP and to some extent progress was observed towards achieving the objectives set in their NAP. 
However,  most  of  the  top  actions  and  objectives  proposed  on  Latvia’s  NAP  were  formulated  in 
general  and  broad  terms.  The  lack  of  concrete  indicators  or  targets  and  absence  of  information 
makes it difficult to assess concrete progress in some areas and results achieved so far. 

1.  More effective national research systems 

Latvia’s score on the headline indicator in this priority, the Adjusted Research Excellence Indicator 
(AREI),  was  20,  less  than  half  of  the  EU-28  benchmark  of  45.  This  score  placed  the  country  in 
Cluster 3. Latvia was placed again in Cluster 3 for its EIS Summary Innovation Index (SII), with a 
score 43 % lower than the EU-28 benchmark. With a 0.22 % share of GDP allocated to GBARD, 
Latvia was well below both the EU-28 score and ERA average (Cluster 4). 

Latvia has reduced its gap to fellow Member States for its GBARD as a share of GDP since the last 
ERA monitoring exercise. Yearly average increases were  almost 13  percentage  points above  the 
EU-28  trend.  Small  yearly  increases  on  the  AREI  closely  followed  the  EU-28  trajectory.  On  the 
SII, Latvia’s gap to other Member States had slightly widened. 

Latvia has initiated higher education reforms in recent years to improve the quality and relevance 
of  public  research  and  education.  Latvia  has  merged  a  number  of  existing  organisations  or 
established  new  bodies  that  support  R&I  and  new  rules  for  funding  allocation  of  projects  (with 
international  standards  of  peer  review)  and  institutions  (with  elements  of  performance-based 
funding) were introduced. 

Latvia  has  progressed  with  the  implementation  of  its  national  research  and  innovation  strategy 
for  smart  specialisation  (RIS3),  identifying  seven  priorities  for  R&D  across  five  smart 
specialisation  areas:  (1)  knowledge-based  bio-  economy;  (2)  biomedicine,  medical  appliances, 
bio-pharmacy  and  bio-technology;  (3)  advanced  materials,  technologies  and  engineering 
systems;  (4)  smart  energy;  and  (5)  Information  and  Communication  Technologies  (ICT).  Most 
public  investment  in  R&I  is  supported  by  EU  funds  and  a  separate  budget  for  RIS3  monitoring 
system was introduced (EC, 2017). 

2.  Optimal transnational co-operation and competition  

a.  Transnational cooperation 

Latvia  invested  more  than  2 000  €  per  researcher  in  public-to-public  partnerships.  This 
performance was well above the EU-28 benchmark of 558 € per researcher, more than triple that 

2 

 
Country profile: Latvia 

figure in fact. Unsurprisingly, this strong showing placed the country in Cluster 1. On the headline 
indicator, GBARD  to  transnational cooperation, the  country positioned  itself  in Cluster  3, and its 
score was about one quarter of the EU-28 benchmark. On the final indicator for this priority, the 
propensity  to  publish  collaborative  papers  with  researchers  from  other  ERA  countries,  Latvia 
obtained  40  papers  per  1 000  researchers,  well  below  the  EU-28  score  of  71  papers.  This 
performance placed Latvia among the countries in Cluster 4. 

Latvia’s  lead on the other  Member  States  on public-to-public partnerships grew notably  through 
yearly  increases  that  outpaced  the  EU-28  trend  by  almost  18  percentage  points.  Latvia’s  score 
increases in recent  years  also  outperformed the  28 Member  States on the  propensity to  publish 
collaborative papers with researchers from other ERA countries, although the outcome here was 
reducing a gap in performances. Latvia’s gap to other Member States has widened since the last 
ERA  monitoring  exercise  on  the  headline  indicator.  A  negative  CAGR  put  the  country  almost  13 
percentage points behind the EU-28 trend here. 

According to its national ERA roadmap 2016, Latvia was involved in four JPIs as an observer and 
in  one  as  a  joint  call  partner.  In  addition  to the  lack  of  information  on  JPI  conditions,  the  main 
reasons for Latvia’s non-participation are the limited R&D funding, as well as the non-existing or 
limited  research  budget  of  line  Ministries  and  their  hesitation  to  participate  in  addressing  grand 
social  challenges  at  the  European  level.  Recently,  Latvia  became  a  member  in  four  JPIs  (Water 
Challenges for a Changing World – WATER; Urban Europe – UE; Initiative on Cultural Heritage – 
CH and Healthy Diet for a Healthy Life - HDHL). 

Sub  priority  2a  in  Latvian  NAP  aimed  to  increase  Latvia’s  involvement  in  Joint  Programming 
Initiatives,  specifically  increase  the  number  of  JPIs  in  which  Latvia  participates  as  a  member. 
Significant progress was achieved its target of becoming a participating member in between three 
to five JPIs. 

b.  Make optimal use of public investments in research infrastructures 

Latvia  made  its  first  forays  into  ESFRI  initiatives  since  the  last  ERA  monitoring  exercise.  It 
participated in 17 % of developing Projects and 11 % of active Landmarks by 2018. These scores 
placed  Latvia  well  below  the  EU-28  benchmarks  of  29 %  for  developing  Projects  and  37 %  for 
Landmarks, as well as below the respective ERA averages (Cluster 3). However, given that Latvia 
was not participating in any of these initiatives as recently as two years ago, its current level of 
involvement represents an important start. 

Note  that  large  countries  are  generally  advantaged  on  this  priority  since  the  indicators  are  not 
normalised to account for differences in the size of countries. 

The  National  level  infrastructure  development  initiative  was  launched  in  2016  and  research 
infrastructure  objects  of  national  importance  were  recognised  to  be  publicly  funded,  approving 
the  participation  of  eight  prior  consortia1    and  platforms2  of  the  ESFRI  Roadmap  (Ministry  of 
Education and Science Republic of Latvia, 2016; OECD, 2016). 

Latvia’s NAP had set as a target for sub priority 2b, the approval of its national ESFRI roadmap. 
The Latvian ESFRI roadmap was approved on 5th of April 2016 as proposed in the NAP. 

3.  An open labour market for researchers 

A share of 73 % of Latvian researchers was satisfied that academic hiring processes were open, 
transparent and merit-based. This score was above the EU-28 benchmark of 65 % and well above 
the ERA average (Cluster 1). The share of Latvian doctoral students from other EU countries was 
6.2 %,  below  the  EU-28  benchmark  of  7.0 %  as  well  as  the  ERA  average  (Cluster  3).  With  7 
EURAXESS  academic  job  ads  per  1  000  researchers  (the  headline  indicator),  Latvia  positioned 
itself below ERA average (Cluster 3) and well below the EU-28 benchmark (42 ads). 

Yearly changes in score were positive and above the EU-28 trend on two indicators. Latvia saw its 
sharpest  growth  for  any  indicator  on  the  Priority  3  headline,  with  a  CAGR  more  than  70 

1 BBMRI-ERIC; CLARIN; ESS-ERIC; EATRIS – ERIC; JIV-ERIC. 
2 EU-OPENSCREEN; INSCTRUCT; MIRRI. 

3 

 
                                                 
Country profile: Latvia 

percentage  points  above  the  EU-28  trend.  This  growth  has  allowed  the  country  to  reduce  its 
performance gap to other Member States since the last ERA monitoring exercise. Marked yearly 
increases  were  also  observed  for  Latvia’s  share  of  doctoral  student  hailing  from  other  EU 
countries,  with  a  CAGR  almost  25  percentage  points  above  the  EU-28  trend.  On  the  remaining 
indicator, Latvia’s growth kept pace with that of its fellow Member States. 

Latvia  increased  their  usage  of  EURAXESS,  however  just  a  few  RPOs  use  EURAXESS  during  the 
implementation  of  international  projects.  RPOs  who  do  not  use  the  portal  to  advertise  job 
vacancies give as a reason their inability to offer adequate compensation for foreign researchers 
(Ministry of Education and Science Republic of Latvia, 2016). 

One  of  the  objectives  defined  in  Latvia’s  NAP  was  that  Latvian  research  institutions  were  to  be 
involved in the process of Human Resources Strategy for Researchers (HRS4R) and comply with 
the  European  Charter  for  Researchers  and  the  Code  of  Conduct  for  the  recruitment  of 
researchers.  Even  though  there  has  been  an  effort  to  implement  more  open,  transparent  and 
merit-based practices, to date no Latvian RPO has won the HRS4R award. Another objective was 
to  increase  the  number  of  researchers’  posts  advertised  through  EURAXESS  portal  per  1,000 
researchers in the public sector per year, from 1 in 2013 to 30 in 2020. Some improvement was 
registered  regarding  this  target  as  Latvia  had  7  EURAXESS  academic  job  ads  per  1  000 
researchers. 

4.  Gender equality and gender mainstreaming in research 

Latvia  had  a  large  share  of  women  among  Grade  A  positions  in  its  higher  education  system,  at 
41 %.  This  level  was  well  above  the  score  of  24 %  for  Member  States  overall  and  it placed  the 
country  well  above  ERA  average,  in  Cluster  1.  Latvia  also  had  a  large  share  of  female  PhD 
graduates, with a 58 % score. This share again placed the Baltic country in Cluster 1, and above 
the  EU-28  benchmark  of  48 %.  The  country  did  not  perform  as  well  on  gender  dimension  in 
research content, with a score below both the ERA average and the EU-28 benchmark. 

Yearly  average  increases  were  found  on  two  indicators  here  since  the  last  ERA  monitoring 
exercise. The most pronounced growth has helped Latvia reduce its gap to fellow Member States 
in gender dimension in research content. The country’s CAGR on that indicator was 12 percentage 
points above the EU-28 trend. Slower growth still extended the country’s lead on other Member 
States  for  the  share  of  women  in  Grade  A  academic  positions.  Finally,  Latvia’s  share  of  female 
PhD graduates was stable, in line with the steady state seen at the EU-28 level. 

Latvia  is  among  the  ERA  countries  that  do  not  have  legal  measures  specific for  gender,  and  do 
not include any elements of gender balance or gender equality aspects. The country also does not 
have  policies,  strategies  or  financial  incentives  for  gender  equality  in  science.  RPOs  implement 
their  own  recruitment  and  do  not  have  separate  measures  for  provision  of  gender  equality  and 
mainstreaming (Ministry of Education and Science Republic of Latvia, 2016). 

Latvia’s unadjusted gender pay gap in total economy and in scientific research and development 
services increased since the last Era monitoring exercise. Latvia is one of the few countries with a 
gender  pay  gap  lower  in  scientific  research  and  development  services  compared  with  total 
economy.  However,  it  is  important  to  highlight  that  the  high  proportion  of  women  has  been 
explained by the lack of competitive and stable remuneration in academia/R&D sector in Latvia. 
Also,  most  female  researchers  are  engaged  in  social  sciences  and  humanities  which  are 
considered to be the non-profitable sciences and are not related to access to the public resources, 
contrary to natural sciences (Ministry of Education and Science Republic of Latvia, 2016). 

Priority  4  was  one  of  the  areas  where  Latvia  made  most  progress,  the  NAP  had  a  target  to 
increase  the  share  of  women  in  Grade  A  positions  in  the  Higher  Education  sector  from  34.4% 
(2014) to 40% in (2020). However currently the proportion is at 41%, surpassing the 40% target 
by  2020.  As  previously  mentioned,  the  results  need  to  be  interpreted  with  caution  and  in  the 
context of country, according to Ministry of Education and Science Republic of Latvia (2016) such 
results are a reflection of women’s greater success in the sector of higher education and the low 
prestige  associated  with  scientist’s  position.  Furthermore,  Latvian  women  in  research  are 
represented  in  lower  positions  and  only  a  small  portion  has  the  opportunity  to  participate  in 
decision-making processes (Ministry of Education and Science Republic of Latvia, 2016). 

4 

 
5.  Optimal  circulation,  access  to  and  transfer  of  scientific  knowledge  including  via 

Country profile: Latvia 

digital ERA 

a.  Knowledge transfer 

Latvia  had  a  large  share  of  public  R&D  funded  privately,  above  14  %.  This  score  was  twice  the 
EU-28  benchmark  and  it  placed  the  country  well  above  the  ERA  average  (Cluster  1).  On  the 
headline indicator for this priority, the share of firms cooperating with either universities or higher 
education institutes, or with governmental, public or private research institutes, the measurement 
for  Latvia  was  just  over  half  the  EU-28  score.  The  country’s  score  put  it  in  Cluster  4.  Latvia 
produced  1  public-private  collaborative  paper  per  million  inhabitants,  compared  to  41  for  the 
Member States overall.  

Scores  have  grown  slightly  since  the  last  ERA  monitoring  exercise  for  the  two  complementary 
indicators, marginally outpacing the EU-28 trajectory. The country saw slight yearly decreases on 
the share of firms cooperating with universities and higher education institutions, meaning Latvia 
was  slightly losing ground here  to  other Member  States (who remained basically  stable). It  was 
outpaced  by  other  Member  States  since  the  last  exercise,  however,  for  its  share  of  firms 
cooperating  with  governmental,  public  or  private  research  institutes;  Latvia’s  score  on  this 
indicator  decreased  by  more  than  10  %  annually  in  recent  years,  compared  to  small  yearly 
increases at the EU-28 level.  

Latvian  economy  structure  suggests  low  drive  for  innovations  (EC,  2016).  Latvia  has  low 
percentage  of  researchers  employed  in  the  private  sector  and  one  of  the  lowest  levels  of 
intersectoral collaboration among ERA countries (EC, 2016). 

In 2018 Latvia passed a law on Scientific Activity, it specifies that the institution responsible for 
the execution of scientific research financed from the state budget must ensure general access to 
research  results  (Legal  acts  of  the  Republic  of  Latvia,  2018).  The  provision  of  the  Law  on 
Scientific Activity is that a scientist has exclusive rights to intellectual property arising from their 
scientific  activity,  unless  otherwise  specified  in  the  contract.  Normally,  agreements  between  an 
author and a publisher stipulate that copyrights are transferred to the publisher. 

b.  Open access 

Latvia’s  performance  in  Open  Access  (OA)  positioned  the  country  in  Cluster  3  across  indicators. 
On the headline indicator, the share of scientific papers available in OA irrespective of the release 
modality  (total  OA),  Latvia  had  a  score  of  38  %,  compared  to  49  %  for  the  Member  States 
overall. In  fact,  scores for  article-based  OA indicators were all about 20 %  to 30 %  below their 
respective  EU-28  benchmarks.  The  country’s  share  of  life  science  papers  with  OA  datasets  was 
less than half the EU-28 score. The country’s gap in performance to other Member States on this 
last  indicator  was  widening  as  well,  with  a  CAGR  about  12  percentage  points  below  the  EU-28 
trajectory. 

The  literature  review  revealed  that  to  date  no  national  policies  on  OA  or  research  data 
management  exist  in  Latvia.  Presently  Latvia  has  12  OA  journals,  two  OA  repositories  (UL  E-
resource Repository and the Academic Repository of National Library of Latvia – “Academia”) and 
one partly OA repository (RTU Institutional Repository). At researchers’ level, issues faced relate 
to deficiency of motivation to publish in OA and low awareness (Ministry of Education and Science 
Republic of Latvia, 2016).  

While a large majority of universities and institutes have no guidelines or regulations with regards 
to  OA,  there  are  two  universities  that  have  their  own  OA  policies:  University  of  Latvia  (UL)  and 
Riga Technical University (RTU) both adopted in 2017. 

Latvia’s  NAP had as one  of the  main objectives under  sub priority  5b increase  the  proportion of 
OA research papers and data in the country to 40 % by 2020. Progress was achieved as Latvia’s 
total share of scientific papers available in OA was 38 %. Another objective related to sub priority 
5b was to organise informative seminars for research institutions informing about the possibilities 
to  publish  their  work  through  open-access  resources,  the  usable  technologies  and  tools.  The 
objective has been achieved as different workshops and seminars were held in 2016 and 2017 on 
the topic. For example, in 2016 a workshop on "Research Data Management and Open Science: 
Challenges  and  Opportunities  for  Latvia"  was  held  and  in  2017  a  national  workshop  on  “Open 

5 

 
Research Data and Data Management” took place at Academic Centre for Natural Sciences of the 
University of Latvia. 

Country profile: Latvia 

6.  International cooperation  

Latvia’s share of knowledge-intensive service exports was 52%, below the EU-28 score of 69 %. 
This  score  placed  the  country  in  Cluster  3.  Gaps  in  performance  to  the  Member  States  overall 
were more pronounced for the other indicators, falling about 40 % to 75 % lower than the EU-28 
level. The lowest performance was observed for the headline indicator, the propensity to publish 
scientific papers with researchers from outside the ERA. There, the country’s score of 14 was well 
below the EU-28 benchmark of 54 and also well below the ERA average (Cluster 4). 

Latvia  reduced  its  gap  to  its  fellow  Member  States  on  the  headline  indicator  since  the  last  ERA 
monitoring  exercise.  Yearly  increases  in  scores  averaged  36  %  and  were  31  percentage  points 
above the EU-28 trend. Reductions in gaps to other Member States were more generally found on 
this priority’s indicators. 

Under priority 6, Latvia’s NAP aimed to continue the existing international bilateral collaboration 
programmes  with  Belarus  and  Ukraine,  as  well  as  the  operation  of  trilateral  cooperation  Latvia- 
Lithuania-Taiwan  fund.  Progress  was  achieved  as  the  continuation  for  existing  international 
bilateral collaboration programmes with Belarus and Ukraine, as well as the operation of trilateral 
cooperation Latvia- Lithuania-Taiwan fund were extended.  

References 

European Commission (2016). Commission Staff Working Document. Country Report Latvia 2016. 
Retrieved 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/2016-european-semester-country-
reports_en 

from 

European Commission (2017). Commission staff working document. Country Report Latvia 2017. 
2017  European  Semester:  Assessment  of  progress  on  structural  reforms,  prevention  and 
correction of macroeconomic imbalances, and results of in-depth reviews under Regulation  (EU) 
No  1176/2011.  Retrieved 
from  https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/2017-european-
semester-country-report-latvia-en.pdf 

Jonkers,  K  and  Zacharewicz,  T.  (2017)  Research  Performance  Based  Funding  Systems:  A 
Comparative Assessment, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. 

Kuļikovskis, G., Petraitytė, D., & Stamenov, B. (2017) RIO Country Report 2016: Latvia. Research 
and  Innovation  Observatory  country  report  series.  Luxembourg:  Publications  Office  of  the 
European  Union.  Retrieved  from  https://rio.jrc.ec.europa.eu/en/library/rio-country-report-latvia-
2016 

Kuļikovskis, G., Petraitytė, D., & Stamenov, B. (2018) RIO Country Report 2017: Latvia. Research 
and  Innovation  Observatory  country  report  series.  Luxembourg:  Publications  Office  of  the 
European 
from 
http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC111257/jrc111257_rio_cr_lv_2017_
pubsy_idf.pdf  

Retrieved 

Union. 

Legal  Acts  of  the  Republic  of  Latvia  (2018)  Zinātniskās  darbības  likums.  Retrieved  from 
https://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=107337  

Ministry  of  Education  and  Science  Republic  of  Latvia  (2016).  Latvian  European  Research  Area 
Roadmap 
from 
http://www.izm.gov.lv/images/starptautiska_sad/Eiropas_P%C4%93tniec%C4%ABbas_telpa/Lat
vian_ERA_Roadmap_2016_-2020.pdf  

2016-2020. 

Retrieved 

OECD  (2016)  “Latvia”,  in  OECD  Science,  Technology  and  Innovation  Outlook  2016.  OECD 
Publishing, Paris. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/sti_in_outlook-2016-72-en 

6 

 
ANNEX: METHODOLOGICAL NOTES 

Country profile: Latvia 

Indicator

Flag

Name

Adjusted Research Excellence Indicator (AREI)

GBARD as share of GDP

EIS Summary Innovation Index (SII)

A - GBARD to transnatl coop (EUR/researcher)

A - C ollab papers w/ERA per 1 000 researchers

A - Public-to-public partnerships (EUR/researcher)

B - Roadmap for ESFRI projects

B - Participation in ESFRI projects and landmarks (combined)

B - Participation in developing ESFRI projects

B - Participation in operational ESFRI landmarks

EURAXESS job ads per 1 000 researchers

Open, transparent, merit-based hiring process

Share of doctoral students from EU countries

Share of women among Grade A in HES

Gender dimension in research content

Share of female PhD graduates

A - Firms coop with univ, gov, res inst

A - Firms coop with univ

A - Firms coop with gov, res inst

A - Share of public R&D funded privately

A - Public-private collab papers per capita

B - Share of papers in Open Access (Total)

B - Share of papers in Open Access (Gold)

B - Share of papers in Open Access (Green)

B - Share life science papers with OA dataset(s)

Collab papers w/non-ERA per 1 000 researchers

Share of doctoral students from outside EU

Share med & high tech product export

Share Knowledge intensive service export

1

y
t
i
r
o
i
r
P

2

y
t
i
r
o

i
r
P

3

y
t
i
r
o
i
r
P

4

y
t
i
r
o
i
r
P

5

y
t
i
r
o
i
r
P

6

y
t
i
r
o

i
r
P

Data 
availability

Exception to 
ref. year

Exception to 
ref. period

Break in 
time series

Definition
differs

Estimated

Provisional

Potential 
outlier

Confidential

2012

2017

2013-16

2015-17

2012

2011

Available

Available

Available

Available

Available

Available

Available

Available

Available

Available

Available

Available

Available

Available

Available

Available

Available

Available

Available

Available

Available

Available

Available

Available

Available

Available

Available

Available

Additional note: For the indicator Share of women among Grade A in HES the definition differs for 2014 and 2016 (reference population = Academic staff) 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country profile: Latvia 

ANNEX:  GUIDE  TO  READING  THE  QUANTITATIVE  RESULTS  TABLES  (COUNTRY 
SNAPSHOTS) 

Each profile table shows the given country’s performance score and growth for all indicators used 
in  this  study.  Given  that  specific  targets  were  not  established  for  each  of  the  24  ERA  Monitoring 
Mechanism  (EMM)  indicators  for  each  country,  it  is  impossible  to  report  on  a  country’s  level  of 
compliance in achieving the ERA priorities, or the ERA policies/actions, that each of these indicators 
intends to measure (3). Instead, the level of performance in the country snapshots is compared to 
the  EU-28  (lead/gap  analysis)  and  ERA  averages  (performance  clusters).  These  references  might 
represent  unrealistic  targets  for  some  countries,  especially  the  smaller  ones.  However,  care  was 
taken  to  use  normalised  indicators  (except  for  Priority  2b),  usually  by  incorporating  the  size  of  a 
country’s  population  or  economy  in  the  denominator  of  an  indicator.  Additionally,  the  EU-28  and 
ERA averages might in some cases be lower than the level of performance which would be optimal 
towards  achieving  the  ERA;  for  instance,  gender  equality  might  not  have  been  reached  in  all 
relevant aspects at the EU- and/or ERA-wide level. That said, the main goal of these comparative 
analyses  is  to  help  situate  countries  relative  to  the  core  of  the  EU  and  ERA,  so  as  to  inform 
decisions on the most appropriate targets and on how to achieve them.  

In addition to a measurement of performance in 2017 (or the most recent reference year for which 
sufficient data were available at the time of producing this report (4)), the profile table also reports 
on recent changes in national performance, computed as a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR). 
The  CAGR  aims  to  assess  progress  made  since  the  ERA  Progress  Report  2016.  Accordingly,  it 
compares  the  latest  available  year  in  the  2016  report  to  the  latest  available  year  in  this  report. 
Growth  since  the  last  monitoring  exercise  is  also  compared  to  the  EU-28  (lead/gap  analysis)  to 
inform individual countries on the extent to which their gap with the EU-28 level of performance is 
closing  or  widening.  This  information  is  intended  to  help  individual  countries  better  assess  the 
extent to which new actions are required to achieve their respective targets. 

The profile table is divided in two parts: performance and growth. For performance, the reference 
year for each indicator is noted. If the reported year for a given country and indicator is different 
from the reference year, the performance score in the snapshot is highlighted using a grey font in 
italics.  The  specific  year  which  is  reported  appears  in  the  column  “exception  to  ref.  year”  of  the 
appendix table at the end of the country profile. The appendix table also lists the years for which a 
flag is applied to the data. The performance section of the snapshot table also provides the EU-28 
scores across indicators upon which the country lead/gap, in percent difference to the EU-28 score, 
is  computed.  Furthermore,  the  performance  clusters  from  the  main  report  have  also  been 
presented here; recall that countries more than one standard deviation above the unweighted ERA 
average (i.e. average across member states and associated countries for which data is available for 
each  indicator)  are  in  Cluster  1,  the  strongest  cluster;  those  at  or  above  the  unweighted  ERA 
average  but  within  one  standard  deviation  are  in  Cluster  2;  those below  the  unweighted  average 
but within one standard deviation are in Cluster 3; those more than one standard deviation below 
the ERA unweighted average are in Cluster 4, the weakest cluster. 

For growth, the reference period used in computing the Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) is 
also  presented,  alongside  the  actual  CAGR.  Again,  exceptions  to  the  reference  period  are 
highlighted by using a grey font in italics to display the actual CAGRs of the corresponding country 
and  EU-28.  Information  on  the  specific  years  used  in  these  cases  are  again  available  in  the 
appendix tables. The lead/gap analysis for growth shows the percentage point difference between 
the  country’s CAGR and the  CAGR  of  the  EU–28  average. The CAGR measures growth relative  to 
the  latest  available  year  in  the  2016  ERA  Progress  Report.  Since  there  were  retrospective 
corrections  to  the  scores  of  countries  on  some  indicators,  growth  was  computed  based  on  the 
updated time series. Trend lines over the longest available period for a given indicator are provided 
to inform on longer-term patterns of progress towards realising the ERA. Empty lines in the trend 
indicate either that data was missing for  that year, or  that  the  country’s score  was  zero. For  one 
indicator  where  short-term  fluctuations  were  particularly  pronounced  (gender  dimension  in 
research  content  in  priority  4),  rolling  averages  (e.g.  average  scores  across  2007–2010,  2008–
2011… 2014–2017) have been used to measure performance and growth. In such cases, the CAGR 
measures  the  year-by-year  percent  change  in  the  rolling  average  of  an  indicator  between  the 
starting  and  ending  periods  (e.g.  between  2011–2014  and  2014–2017).  These  cases  are 

3 A more in-depth assessment of progress of implementation of ERA policies was rather achieved in the text of 
country  profiles  (not  the  snapshot  tables)  accounting  for  quantitative  (where  available)  and  qualitative 
(especially) elements in relation to the objectives, baselines, targets, timelines and milestones established by 
individual countries in their National Action Plans (NAP). 
4 Refer to the 2018 ERA Monitoring Handbook for the extraction dates of the presented data. 

8 

 
 
                                                 
Country profile: Latvia 

highlighted by  the  addition of the superscript (R) to the reference  year (performance) and period 
(growth) of the concerned indicators.  

The  lead/gap  analyses,  both  for  performance  and  for  growth,  have  been  colour-coded  to  help 
visually elucidate patterns in the findings. The colour scheme for the country profiles ranges from 
dark blue  (weakest scores) to  dark orange  (strongest scores), as  was applied in  the  main report. 
There is, however, a key difference to note. In the main report, the colouring compared the results 
of  different  countries  along  a  single  indicator,  in  these  country  profile  tables  the  colouring 
compares the results of one country along several indicators, to highlight its relative strengths and 
weaknesses  across  indicators.  More  specifically,  in  each  profile,  blue  always  indicates  that  a 
country is below the EU–28 average, and orange always indicates that it is above, but the shade of 
blue  and  orange  (dark  or  light)  is  relative  to  the  country’s  own  performance  across  indicators, 
rather than relative to the performance of other countries. 

Indicators  in  bold  are  the  Headline  indicators  that  were  selected  as  being  the  most  relevant  in 
monitoring  progress  in  achieving  the  ERA  by  the  European  Research  Area  and  Innovation 
Committee (ERAC). Within each priority, the Headline is followed by the two complementary EMM 
indicators identified by ERAC. Lack of data is identified by using a symbol (:) within the table cells. 

Due to changes and discontinuities in data collection, some indicators have been updated, modified 
or  replaced.  A  first  modification  was  introduced  for  the  complementary  EMM  indicators  of  Priority 
2b  (Make  optimal  use  of  public  investments  in  research  infrastructures).  Here,  findings  are  now 
provided  on  a  combined  indicator  that  better  illustrates  how  level  of  engagement  in  ESFRI 
developing Projects and Landmarks are connected rather than independent. 

For the headline indicator of Priority 5a, the underlying data coming from Eurostat was for the first 
time  aggregated  in  a  manner  that  made  it  possible  to  present  a  single  metric  (in  terms  of 
performance)  merging  both  of  its  underlying  dimensions  (5);  that  is  the  share  of  product  and/or 
process innovative firms cooperating with 1) universities or higher education institutions, or 2) with 
government, public or private research institutes. For growth, these two dimensions still had to be 
kept separated in this edition. 

The indicators on the share of a country’s peer-reviewed scientific papers that are available in Open 
Access (i.e. Total, Gold and Green OA) in Priority 5b have all been impacted by a revised definition 
of  what  constitute  Green  Open  Access  papers  (see  Section  3.5.5  of  the  Main  Report  for  a 
description of this change). The indicator on the inclusion of OA policies in RIO policy repositories 
was  discontinued  since  the  new  reporting  guidelines  for  RIO  policy  reports  no  longer  ask  the 
experts to report on OA specifically. It has been replaced by a qualitative assessment of the NAPs 
and other  information sources. A new indicator  was also  added to  Priority 5b to  fill  a data gap in 
the 2016 ERA Progress Report; no data was available in 2016 for the share of research performing 
organisations (RPOs) making their research data available in OA. The share of research performing 
organisations (RPOs) making their research data available in OA has been replaced by the share of 
life  sciences  papers  to  which  a  country  contributed  and  that  have  at  least  one  open  dataset  in 
Figshare. 

Due to discontinued data, the indicator on “Licence and patent revenues from abroad as a share of 
GDP” in Priority 6 has been replaced by two new indicators: knowledge intensive services exports 
as percentage of total services exports and exports of medium and high technology products as a 
share  of  total product exports; this modification  coincides with a similar  replacement in the  2018 
European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS). Changes in the data for some countries also led to changes 
in  EU28  aggregate  scores  the  following  two  indicators:  the  share  of  doctoral  candidates  with  a 
citizenship of another EU Member State (Priority 3) and non-EU doctorate students as a share of all 
doctorate students (Priority 6). Additional modifications in the approach used in computing EU-28 
aggregate  scores  (e.g.  imputation  of  missing  data)  led  to  some  changes  in  the  GBARD  (EUR) 
allocated to Europe-wide transnational, as well as bilateral or multilateral, public R&D programmes 
per FTE researcher in the public sector (Priority 2a). 

Finally,  the  composite  indicators  combining  findings  from  headline  and  complementary  indicators 
within  and across ERA priorities have  not be  computed in the  2018  ERA monitoring exercise. The 
rationale for these changes is detailed in the 2018 ERA Monitoring Handbook. 

5 The new aggregation provided by Eurostat enabled this change by removing duplicated count of firms falling 
in both types of partnerships. 

9 

 
 
                                                 
Country profile: Latvia 

10 

 
 
 
 
How to obtain EU publications 

Free publications: 

•  one copy: 

        via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); 

•  more than one copy or posters/maps: 

        from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
        from the delegations in non-EU countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
        by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or 
        calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*). 

        (*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you). 

Priced publications: 

•  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).  

 
 
 
         
 
 
 
K
I
-
0
4
-
1
9
-
1
0
9
-
E
N
-
N

The  2018  ERA  Progress  Report  assesses  the  current  state  of  the 
European  Research  Area  (ERA)  and  the  progress  made  on  ERA 
implementation  in 2016-2018. It  is the  second  time in a row  that 
progress  has  been  measured  at  country  level  using  the  ERA 
monitoring mechanism. 

Based on the overall evolution of the headline indicators, progress 
on  ERA  implementation  continues,  albeit  at  a  slower  pace  than 
before.  This  trend  calls  for  a  renewed  commitment  to  (i)  further 
strengthening  shared  efforts  at  all  levels;  (ii)  reforming  national 
research  and  innovation  systems;  and  (iii)  realising  a  well-
functioning  ERA.  The  Commission  has  anticipated  this  need  by 
proposing  a  number  of  programmes  for  the  next  financing  period 
2021-2027:  these  include  regional  funds,  a  European  reform 
innovation 
delivery  tool,  and  the  EU’s  next  research  and 
framework  programme  —  Horizon  Europe,  which  includes  a 
dedicated pillar to help strengthen the ERA. 

Research & Innovation policy 

ISBN 978-92-79-99855-3 
doi:10.2777/662419