4.5. Conclusions: Precision Engineering ITM For conclusion, it could be stated that PE ITM (similarly as many other ITMs) is primarily a policy initiative to improve the coordination of different public agencies supporting the development of this (as well as other) sectors in the fields of productivity upgrading, skills and workforce training, research and development and as well as international trade. The majority of instruments, available for companies to support their productivity and industrial upgrading have been available before the introduction of the ITM – like the 5-yearly R&D support plans (RIE); variety of tax credits available from companies; public support for training measures and support to build international trade capacity. Some measures will even be discontinued soon after the adoption of the ITM, notably the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC), to be discontinued after 2018. At the same time, Precision Engineering Industry might be one of few industry sectors to benefit of the two new industry upgrading initiatives of the government: the Automation Support Package and the National Robotics Programme. The sector would potentially benefit of these products both directly, by enabling with public sector support to increase the level of automation of production as well as indirectly – by increased demand for automation and robotisation technologies, while being a key supplier for deployment of these technologies. Furthermore, the economic performance of the sector, at least since 2011, has been rather constrained, showing very limited output or productivity growth; despite ambitious targets and supposedly substantial public sector support since the adoption of 2011 productivity roadmap for precision engineering industry. It would seem that there are some major barriers for further development of the sector and it is likely to be difficult to jump-start the growth of the sector. In terms of the analysis of the sector, it is difficult to disaggregate the sector performance into constituent sub-sectors due to uncertain statistical definition of those sub-sectors; they also different from the sectors as analysed and presented in policy documents. The preliminary comparison with the European Union data (creating, based on available statistics; a similarly defined PE sector) indicates, that PE sector in Singapore has somewhat above the average productivity level in the EU of the correspond group of industry activities, but significantly behind the level of productivity achieved by a number of countries like Switzerland, Norway, Belgium, Austria or United Kingdom. Finally, in terms of the forecasts for high-growth cluster of activities within the sector, it is uncertain how these sectors are defined as international analyses do not correspond well with the performance when analysing expected industry sectors as defined by international standard industrial classification of economic activities. In some cases the sectors identified correspond more to emerging technologies applied across industries, rather than a specific industry itself – also then limiting the capacity to capture added value by any particular sector linked to the application or sourcing for the deployment of such technology.
97
