INNOVATIVE ACTIVITY OF ENTERPRISES AS A FACTOR IN ENHANCING THE COMPETITIVENESS OF THE REGION Текст научной статьи по специальности «Экономика и бизнес»

INNOVATIVE ACTIVITY OF ENTERPRISES AS A FACTOR IN ENHANCING THE

COMPETITIVENESS OF THE REGION

Sergei V. Shkiotov

Yaroslavl State Technical University, Russia E-mail: shkiotov@yandex.ru

Maksim I. Markin

Yaroslavl State Technical University, Russia E-mail: markinmi@yandex.ru

Abstract. The paper uses the methods of economic and mathematical modeling to verify the relationship between innovation activity of enterprises operating in the Central Federal District of Russia and GRP of the macroregion subjects in the long term. It is impossible to create a regional model of sustainable development in Russia without overcoming the gap in socio-economic development of the country's regions. The key factor in overcoming the inequality of Russian regions and increasing their competitiveness is the development of scientific and technological base of agglomerations, strengthening their innovation activity. The purpose of the work is to assess the impact of innovation activity of the CFD enterprises on GRP of the macroregion subjects. Two research hypotheses were verified during the study: there should exist a direct (statistically significant) link between the dynamics of innovation activity of enterprises and the growth rate of GRP of CFD regions; there should exist a direct (statistically significant) link between the dynamics of investments in fixed capital and investment activity of CFD enterprises. Correlation analysis was used in the study. The study results led the authors to believe that the innovation activity of the CFD enterprises has little impact on GRP of the macroregion entities, and the amount of investment in fixed capital does not affect the innovation activity in the agglomeration. The results of the study are explained, on the one hand, by the limitations of the model used, and on the other hand, by the uneven social and economic development of the Russian regions, which affects the innovation, among other areas. The results of the study, the methodology, and data set proposed by the authors make the work unique and novel. The conducted research reiterates the task of rethinking the measures of support aimed at stimulating innovation activity at the regional level from the state.

Keywords: innovation activity, GRP, correlation analysis, sustainable development, investment in fixed capital, Central Federal District of Russia.

JEL codes: C12; F20; O11

For citation: Shkiotov, S., & Markin, M. (2021). Innovative activity of enterprises as a factor in enhancing the competitiveness of the region. JOURNAL OF REGIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS, (1), 42-47. Retrieved from http://jraic. com/index.php/tor/article/view/29/26

DOI: 10.52957/27821927 2021 2 42

Introduction

Sustainable development of the region is a paradigm based on the need to ensure balanced social, environmental, and economic development of the agglomeration, which should preserve the national wealth for future generations.

The problem is that this concept in Russian realities faces significant disproportions in the dynamics of development of individual regions of the country. Differences in nature and climate, population size, economic activity — these and other factors undermine the possibility of a balanced model of regional development, dividing Russian regions into donors and recipients of financial assistance from the federal center.

Opportunities for overcoming the gap in the social and economic development of regions lie in the development of scientific and technological base of the agglomeration, increasing its level of innovation activity. At the same time, intensification of innovation activities at the regional level will contribute to increasing the level of competitiveness of the agglomeration.

The study analyzes role of innovation activity at the regional level as a factor ensuring the growth of agglomeration competitiveness in this regard.

Despite the fact that the overall level of innovation activity in Russia according to international experts is relatively low (for example, in the Global Innovation Index 2020, Russia ranks 47th out of 131 countries represented in the ranking) (The Global Innovation Index, 2020), publications in economic literature indicate that it is innovation that is a key factor in ensuring sustainable regional development in modern conditions.

Table 1 - Dynamics of Russia in the Global Innovation Index, 2015-20

Parameter 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Place in the rating 48 43 45 46 46 47

Number of countries in the rating 141 128 127 126 129 131

Innovation resources 52 44 43 43 41 42

Innovation results 49 47 51 56 59 58

Source: Bateneva, 2020

Spitsin et al. (2018); Savin and Winker (2012); Zemtsov & Baburin (2016); Bogatyrev et al. (2019); Priadko (2020); Kokorina & Koroleva (2021) consider the indicators that define innovation activity at the regional level.

Pogodaeva et al. (2015); Babskova et al. (2019); Nikonova (2019); Rodionov et al. (2020); Palkina et al. (2020) reveal the impact of innovation activity on social and economic development of Russian regions.

Study structure:

- The Sources and Methods section presents and substantiates the research methods used and highlights the goals and objectives of the study;

- The Results section contains the main results of the study;

- The Discussion section provides a discussion of the results of the study and describes the main limitations of the model;

- The last section contains a description of the practical relevance of the study in addition to the key conclusions.

Sources and Methods

The purpose of the work is to assess the impact of innovation activity of the CFD enterprises on GRP of the macroregion subjects.

The study addressed two objectives:

1. determine the trend of changes in the studied indicators in the 9-year time interval (innovation activity of CFD enterprises and GRP of CFD regions);

2. verify the relationship between the studied indicators using the methods of economic and mathematical modeling.

Research Hypothesis 1: there should exist a direct (statistically significant) link between the dynamics of innovation activity of enterprises and the growth rate of GRP of CFD regions.

Research Hypothesis 2: there should exist a direct (statistically significant) link between the dynamics of investments in fixed capital and investment activity of CFD enterprises.

Methodological research basis

Source data:

- level of innovation activity of enterprises, grouped by Russian regions, 2010-19, % (Rosstat. Science and Innovation, 2020);

- GRP dynamics in the CFD regions, 2010-18, million rubles (Rosstat. National Accounts, 2019);

- dynamics of investments in fixed capital in the CFD regions, 2010-18, million rubles (Rosstat. Regions of Russia. Socio-economic indicators, 2019);

Study period: 2010-2019, Russia.

Correlation analysis (significance level 10%) was used to verify the relationship between the studied indicators; the data were processed using Statistica (StatSoft).

Results

The results of the correlation analysis are presented in Figures 1 and 2, Table 2.

The analysis of the data presented in Figures 1 and 2 indicates a statistically significant relationship between the studied indicators, but does not allow us to evaluate it quantitatively.

The data presented in Table 1 allow us to quantitatively assess the correlation between the studied indicators:

- Hypothesis 1 was confirmed for 7 out of 18 CFD regions; no link for 9 regions; for two CFD regions (the Bryansk and Orel oblasts), the inverse relationship was found between the amount of investment in fixed capital and innovation activity of organizations;

- Hypothesis 2 was confirmed for 6 out of 18 CFD regions; no link for 8 regions; for five CFD regions, an inverse relationship was found between the innovative activity of organizations and their GRP.

>

or

o

>

1- • 0- V

-1- • *

10 12 scale<CFO_INN[l:9])

ir o-

co

■10 12 scale(BEL_INN[l:9])

-10 1 scale(BRJNN[l:9])

3

S--H

to

g '.....

-1.5-1.0-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0

scale(VLA_INN[l:9])

lo-

-i i-

l-

tn o

-10 12

scale{VOR_INN[l:9]) ■

l

° • - .

-1- •

-10 1

scale(KURS_INN[l:9] •

i- > oi • •* *

-10 1 scale(RYAZ_lNN[l:9]

<L>

nj

-1.5-1.0-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 scale(IVAN_INN[l:9])

i- • 0- .

-I-«

■

-10 1 scale(LIP_INN[l:9])

o-

-2 - i . • , -2-10 1 scale (TAMI NN[1:9])

<D

-10 12 . scale(KALUZ_INN[l:9

-1- •

-2-10 1 scale(KOS_INN[l:9])

m'2" O i

8 o-

; -10 12 ' scale(MOSOB_INN[l:i

Ji i-

o-

-i-

-10 1 sca(e(ORL_INN[l:9])

2- •

tr

LU

-J1 1 -*

t- o-

OJ

IB -1.

-10 12 scale(TVER_lNN[l:9]

-10 1 scale(TUL_INN[l:9])

1 * . -

1- .

i o i scale(YAR INN[1:9])

r

-10 12 seal e(M OS I NN[1:9])

Figure 1. Correlation field between the investment in fixed capital and innovation activity of CFD

enterprises1

Source: composed by the authors

1 Scale (*_INV) — investment in fixed capital in (*) the corresponding CFD region; Scale (*_INN) — innovation activity in (*)

the corresponding CFD region

CL

tr >

1-

I •

О 0- •

LL •

U , *

¥ . .

3-2-10

~ seal e (С FO I N N[ r])

CM

Q_

!" ш

Ш

аГ-1-

U

-1.0-0.50.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

scale(BEL_INN[r])

û- 1-ce

0-

ce

e-i-

Ш

15

й

-10 1 scale(BR_INN[r]>

CL

cr

1-

0-

<x

о

ф

со u JA.

-1.0-0.50.0 0.5 1.0

Cl

ce

>

I

aj ni u

1.0-, 0.50.00.51.01.5-

s scalefVOR IN N[r])

S" L5"*

> 1.0- •

g'aoj * '

Z> -0-5- "

^,-1.0 H

, •.....

« -1.00.50.0 0.51.0 1.5

-1.0-0.50.00.51.01.5

scale(IVAN IN N[r])

a

ce >

Л -1 ns

u

CL

ce

S1

aj

S

CL

ce

m О to О

-1.0-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0

CL

ce >

t

CL

ce

>,

(Л О

¥ (0

1.5-e 1.0- • 0.5- * .

0.00.5 - * . -1.0- •

-1.51 1.....

-1.51.00.50.00.51.01.5

scale(VLA_INN[r])

fsj

cT

CC 1>

fsj 0-

I-

ЗГ ■

g -10 1

Ä scale(RYAZ_INN[r])

-10 1 Ä scale(LIP_INN[r])

CL 1-

oa >10-

scale(KALUZ INN[r]) ¡=,

(NJ

* cT . • g

é

• О • Ж

со

-2 -10 l scale(KOS INN[r]}

«

Îf aT

IX

V

ce „ ш о

L

-2 -10 1 scale(MOSOBJNN[r]

-10 1 scale(ORL_lNN[r]}

a

a: 1-« >

ce o-

5 ûî CD

Й s cal e (TAMJ N N[r])

a •

к

>, 4

Й о-

о •

-2-10 1 scale(TVER_l N N[r])

CL

ОС >

D

Ь

ai ■ ce

-10 1 scale(TUL_INN[r])

'-1-

o ifi

■10 1 se al e ( YA R I N N[ r])

eu «

■10 1 s cal e (M OS IN N [r])

Figure 2. Correlation field between innovation activity of CFD organizations and GRP of macroregion

subjects (1 year lag)2

Source: composed by the authors

Table 2 — Results of correlation analysis

Impact of investment in fixed capital on innovation activity of CFD organizations Impact of organizations' investment activity on GRP of CFD regions (1 year lag)

Central Federal District 0.7219047 no correlation

Belgorod region no correlation 0.7857201

Bryansk region -0.59061 -0.893689

Vladimir region no correlation 0.968218

Voronezh region 0.7113511 no correlation

Ivanovo region 0.5518052 no correlation

Kaluga region no correlation no correlation

Kostroma region no correlation -0.598318

Kursk region no correlation -0.6750151

Lipetsk region 0.5335429 0.8692922

Moscow region 0.874703 0.60245

2 Scale (*_VRP) — GRP in (*) the corresponding CFD region; Scale (*_INN) — innovation activity in (*) the corresponding CFD region

Impact of investment in fixed capital on innovation activity of CFD organizations Impact of organizations' investment activity on GRP of CFD regions (1 year lag)

Orlov region -0.7060207 -0.8741719

Ryazan region no correlation 0.865232

Smolensk region no correlation 0.7737095

Tambov region 0.6646106 no correlation

Tver region 0.5412771 no correlation

Tula region no correlation no correlation

Yaroslavl region no correlation -0.7579139

Moscow 0.6158775 no correlation

Source: composed by the authors

Discussion

In general, the study results do not confirm any of the hypotheses proposed in the paper.

The results of the study contradict the conclusions of earlier studies: Spitsin et al., 2018; Teplykh & Galimardanov, 2017; Ermasova & Nikitin, 2014.

The results of the study should be interpreted with caution, due to a number of model limitations associated with the study such as:

- insufficient sampling;

- a time lag between investment in fixed capital and innovation activity of enterprises; between the innovation activity of enterprises and the GRP of a CFD region;

- changes in the Rosstat calculation of the studied indicators;

- using nominal rather than real indicators.

Conclusion

The results of the study show that the innovation activity of CFD enterprises has little impact on GRP of the macroregion subjects, and the amount of investment in fixed capital does not affect the innovation activity in the agglomeration.

The uneven social and economic development of the Russian regions does not create an opportunity for a model of sustainable regional development and affects the innovation area as well (large businesses are the main innovation drivers in our country but are not represented in all CFD regions).

The research may be useful because the results of the study do not allow us to unambiguously interpret the determinants of innovation activity growth in Russian regions, the impact of innovation on the growth of regional economies. It brings us to the need to rethink government support measures that are aimed at stimulating innovation activity at the regional level.

We hope that this work will activate a new wave of applied research of innovation activity at the regional

level.

References

1. Cornell University, INSEAD, and WIPO (2020). The Global Innovation Index 2020: Who Will Finance Innovation? Ithaca, Fontainebleau, and Geneva.

2. Spitsin, V., Mikhalchuk, A., Chistyakova, N., Spitsyna, L. and Pavlova, I. (2018). Development of innovative industries in Russia under unfavourable external environment. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, Vol. 13(3), 467-485.

3. Savin, I. and Winker, P. (2012). Heuristic Optimization Methods for Dynamic Panel Data Model Selection. Application on the Russian Innovative Performance. Computational Economics, Vol. 39, 337-363.

4. Zemtsov, S.P.and Baburin, V.L. (2016). Does economic-geographical position affect innovation

processes in Russian regions? Geography. Environment. Sustainability., Vol. 9, 4-32.

5. Bogatyrev, A. & Bubnova, O. (2019). Experience of factor analysis of innovative activity of the region. The Economy under Guard, 2019(3), 10-15. https://doi.org/10.36511/2588-0071-2019-3-10-15

6. Priadko, I. (2020). Monitoring of Innovative Activity Development in the Region. Modern Economics, 20(1), pp. 233-238. https://doi.org/10.31521/modecon.v20(2020)-36

7. Kokorina, A.A., & Koroleva, I.A. (2021). The features of innovative activity in the Russian regions. Globus, 7(1(58)), 27-29. https://doi.org/10.52013/2658-5197-58-1-8

8. Pogodaeva, T., Zharapova, D. and Efremova, I. (2015). Changing Role of the University in Innovation Development: New Challenges for Russian Regions. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 214, 359 -367.

9. Babskova, O., Nadezhina, O., & Zaborovskaya, O. (2019). Innovative activities in a region in the conditions of the development of the digital environment. International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering, 8(12), 4361-4365. https://doi.org/10.35940/ijitee.L3870.1081219

10. Nikonova, M. (2019). Innovative activity in Russian regions. Federalism, (2), 5-19. https://doi. org/10.21686/2073-1051-2019-2-5-19

11. Rodionov, D., Nadezhina, O., & Yalimov, S. (2020). Evaluating the impact of small and medium business on the innovative activity of regions in Russia. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, ECIE (Vol. 2020-September, 562-567). Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited. https://doi.org/10.34190/EIE.20.218

12. Palkina, M., Matveeva, N., & Psareva, N. (2020). The innovative activity in depressed regions of the Russian Federation. In E3S Web of Conferences (Vol. 210). EDP Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1051/ e3sconf/202021016021

13. Rosstat. Science and Innovation. (2020). Retrieved from https://rosstat.gov.ru/folder/14477 (in Russian)

14. Rosstat. National Accounts. (2019). Gross Regional Product by constituent entities of the Russian Federation in current prices. Retrieved from https://www.gks.ru/storage/mediabank/VRP98-18.xlsx (in Russian)

15. Rosstat. Regions of Russia. Socio-economic indicators. (2019). Investments: Investment in fixed capital. Retrieved from https://gks.ru/bgd/regl/b19_14p/IssWWW.exe/Stg/d01/11-01.docx (in Russian)

16. Teplykh, G.V., Galimardanov, A.Sh. (2017). Modelirovanie investitsii v innovatsii v rossiiskikh regionakh. [Modelling investment in innovation in Russian regions.] Prikladnaya ekonometrika, No. 46, 104125. (in Russian)

17. Ermasova, N.B., Nikitin, A.A. (2014). Faktory, vliyayushchie na innovatsionnuyu aktivnost' organizatsii. [Factors influencing the innovation activity of organizations.] Izvestiya Saratovskogo universiteta. Novaya seriya. Seriya: Ekonomika. Upravlenie. Pravo, Vol. 14(3), 495-503. (in Russian)

18. Bateneva, T. Topchemsya na meste. [We're Stalling.] Rossiiskaya gazeta. Special Issue No. 269(8323). https://rg.ru/2020/11/30/rezultaty-innovacionnoj-deiatelnosti-v-rossii-okazalis-nizhe-ozhidaniia.html (in Russian)

© Sergei V. Shkiotov, Maksim I. Markin, 2021

Received 24.04.2021

Accepted 03.06.2021