CC BY
26ЭКОНОМИКА
Для цитирования: Bespalyy S.V., Ifutina Ye.A. Territory: analysis of methods of assessment of socio-economic and innovative development // Grand Altai Research & Education / Nauka i obrazovanie Bol'sogo Altaa: сетевое издание». 2018. выпуск 2 (9). [Электронный ресурс] URL:
http://rectors.altstu.rU/ru/periodical/archiv/2018/2/articles/1_1.pdf (Дата доступа: 22.10.2018 г.) DOI 10.25712/ASTU.2410-485X.2018.02.01
UDK 332.1 JEL P25
TERRITORY: ANALYSIS OF METHODS OF ASSESSMENT OF SOCIOECONOMIC AND INNOVATIVE DEVELOPMENT
S.V. Bespalyy, Ye.A. Ifutina
«Innovative University of Eurasia» LLP (Pavlodar, Republic of Kazakhstan) sergeybesp@mail.ru, elena.ifutina@mail.ru
Introduction
In all countries of the world, regions have different levels of socio-economic development, formed due to the huge differences in the history of development, natural and climatic conditions, geographical location, territorial concentration of the population, demographic situation and other factors. Proper use of existing resources and their efficient distribution are also an important factor for the region.
Due to the fact that many factors influence the socio-economic development of the territory, it is necessary to take into account all the spheres that are present in the territory and the degree of their development, as well as to carefully evaluate and identify the weaknesses of each sphere.
There are various methodological approaches to evaluating the socio-economic development of the territory. The system of indicators for monitoring the socioeconomic development of the regions, identifying their characteristics, strengths and weaknesses, evaluation of their relevance are up-to-date for state policy in the field of regional governance.
At present, there is a need for reliable data on socio-economic processes at the regional level. Among the obvious solutions to this problem are detailed statistical observations: calculation and provision of data at the regional level.
In each region there are some forms of activity associated with positive changes in products, processes, industrial management or marketing, aimed at developing competitive advantages. And if scientific leadership is not equally up-to-date strategy for all regions, then the policy of improving the socio-economic state, can be effective in any territory.
The region is recognized as the most convenient entity that is able, on the one hand, to participate in specific global value chains and to focus on world market and technological trends, and on the other hand, to develop its own unique advantages inscribed in the local context and containing a significant component of implicit
knowledge. At the regional level, global and local knowledge is being integrated.
Methods of the research
This research is focused on methodologies for evaluating the indicators of socio-economic and innovative development of the regions. In foreign methodologies that are used to evaluate certain aspects of socio-economic development and processes occurring in the regions there is no consensus, and the proposed evaluation indicators are significantly different.
To analyze the available research in the field of evaluating the socio-economic and innovative development of the regions, the authors of the article used the methods of comparative analysis and generalization.
Results of the research
In managing the economic system, an important aspect is the availability of tools for evaluating the main indicators of the system's development and the results achieved, as well as the possibility of comparing them with other entities, and the ability to continuously monitor the dynamics and directions of changes in key development indicators. The evaluation and comparison of socio-economic and innovative development, both in individual countries and in their regions, is practiced in the international community.
All approaches to evaluating the socio-economic development of the regions can be divided into two groups: qualitative and quantitative. The main feature of qualitative methods is non-use or fragmented use of statistical methods in the ranking or classification of regions. The main role here is played by case-studies and analysis of existing literature.
Analysis of the literature shows the growing popularity of the quantitative approach. It is necessary to select the consistent, reliable and valid indicators for the quantitative evaluation of social and economic processes in the region and the way they are integrated. It is exactly the quantitative approaches that claim to be an analytical support for social, economic, scientific, and technical and innovation policies implemented by state authorities at various levels.
Carried out analysis of the methods used in Europe, in the countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the United States and the Russian Federation to evaluate the development of the regions is presented in Figure 1 [1-25].
All studies are based on the inclusion in the analysis of a sufficiently large number of indicators, including indirect indicators, reflecting the accumulated scientific potential, the educational level, the sectoral structure of the regions' economy.
When classified according to a territorial basis, the most well-known international systems for evaluating innovative development are:
- at the country level - The Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) [25], The Global Innovation Index (GII) [26], The European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS) [27], The International Innovation Index (III) [28].
- at the regional level - in the European Union it is Regional Innovation
Scoreboard, RIS [29] and in the USA - Portfolio Innovation Index, PII [30].
M
■a
o
S
s
o «
s
«
H
Evaluation of the regions' development in Europe and in OECD countries - Clarysse Muldur, EC-15: NUTS 1 and NUTS 2; - ESPON, ЕС-27: NUTS 2 and NUTS 1; - De Bruijn, Lagendijk, ЕС-15: NUTS 2; - Fraunhofer ISI / MERIT; - Hollanders, ЕС-25: 206 regions of NUTS 1 and 2 - Navarro, et al., ЕС-25. NUTS 1 and NUTS 2; - Hollanders, et al., ЕС-27. NUTS 1 and NUTS 2. - Wintjes, Hollanders, EU regions; - Marsan, Maguire, Regions in OECD countries, Level of detail -TL2; - Hollanders, et al., ЕС-22. NUTS 1 - 55 regions; NUTS 2 - 135 regions
Evaluation of the regions' development in the US - Florida, 200 metropolitan statistical areas of the USA; - U.S. Economic Development Administration, 3111 US district
y
Evaluation of the regions' development in the Russian Federation
■ Index of Innovation of Regions. "North-West" Center for Strategic Research;
■ Rating of regions in terms of the innovation index. Independent Institute for Social Policy;
■ Rating of regions of Russia in terms of innovative development. Russian Research Institute of Economics, Politics and Law in Science and Technology;
■ Comparative analysis of innovative activity of RF entities. Interdepartmental Analytical Center;
■ Rating of innovation activity in Russian regions. National Association of Innovation and Information Technology Development;
■ Rating of innovative development of Russian regions for management purposes. Association of Innovative Regions of Russia;
■ Index of innovative development of Russian regions. Financial University;
tt:«i, c ..u ..
i :
1
i ) n
Figure 1 - Methods for evaluating the development of regions; compiled by the
authors from literature sources [1-24]
Since 2002, the European Union has been implementing a system of evaluating the innovative development of the regions, which consists of a two-level measurement system: at the country level it is the European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS) and at the regional level - the Regional Innovation Scoreboard (RIS). The system for evaluating the innovative development of the EU regions includes 16 out of 29 indicators of the country survey. This is due to the fact that fewer statistical data are available at the regional level than at the country level. Within the RIS, the groups of regions with a similar level of innovative development are allocated and ranked. RIS includes three blocks of indicators: the factors of innovative development
(percentage of the population aged 30-34, having completed higher education, expenditures for R&D in the public sector); the activities of companies (expenditures for R&D in the business sector, the innovation costs, the number of innovative SMEs, the number of patent applications); the results of innovation activities (SMEs that implemented an innovative product, the employment in knowledge-intensive activities, sales' and exports' scope). As a result of the evaluation of innovative development of the EU regions, the five types of innovation territories are distinguished: strong innovators; medium- strong innovators; average innovators; medium- weak innovators; weak innovators [27, 29].
The conducted research allows drawing a conclusion that in general, a broad understanding of innovations as a complex phenomenon is typical, for the evaluation thereof a sufficiently large number of indicators is required. At the same time, the task of maximum correspondence to the two competing principles comes to the fore: completeness of the description of the phenomena and processes being studied and the maximum compactness of the indicators' system.
An increase in the number of indicators leads to issues with the interpretation of the final index. A compromise solution is the grouping of indicators by blocks (the first level) and, in some cases, by groups within the blocks (the second level), which reflect different aspects of innovation processes occurring in the regions. Such hierarchical structure of the system of indicators allows to form a system of ratings, i.e. to calculate not only the final index, but also sub indexes, which allow to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the innovative development of the region on the basis of detailed elaboration to the level of specific subject areas (for example, the scientific potential).
One common feature of the research is the advantageous use of official statistics. Reliance on official data in most cases is absolutely justified, while the construction of own indicators and the collection of relevant data is associated with certain risks.
Backsliding on the statistical indicators almost inevitably generates problems related to insufficient accuracy and detailed elaboration of the methodology, limited sampling, incompatibility of data, leading to discussions of the results' interpretation. It is not quite obvious how the indicators were selected, the reliability of the data source was evaluated, and how the issues of matching heterogeneous data were solved.
It is reasonable to expect that in the near future practically in all regions the innovation policy will formally meet the established quality conditions. Therefore, the question of developing approaches to an integral quantitative measurement of the regional authorities' activities in the sphere of innovation incentive is already at issue right now.
Researchers from the CIS countries have more statistical data reflecting innovative processes at the regional level. In Europe, there is the similar studies, - the Community Innovation Survey, but it is somewhat less informative, the data on it are not available for all regions of the European Union and are collected not annually, but every two years. Foreign studies include into the evaluation the regions from different
countries (not necessarily members of the European Union), which, unlike Russian papers that study only Russian regions, gives rise to additional difficulties related to comparability of data, differences in survey periods, and so on.
Comparison of the applied methodologies for evaluating the development of the territory made it possible to identify similarities in the lack of consensus about which indicators should be used to evaluate certain aspects of innovation processes occurring in the regions.
Along with the similarities in researches, there are important differences, many of which should be correctly interpreted as certain shortcomings that require further research efforts. First, we note that while foreign researchers prefer to backslide on ratings in favor of more neutral "A winner and a loser" typologies (from the point of view of the dichotomy), the authors of the countries of the near abroad create exclusively regional ratings.
At the same time, the classification (usually based on cluster analysis) is also a useful procedure, since it allows us to identify groups of regions that are close to each other not so much in terms of the overall level of innovative development as in the structural features of this process. The classification allows the regions to compare themselves with structurally close regions, determine common patterns and borrow those tools that have shown their effectiveness in the regions with a similar model for the development of innovation processes. We believe that the dissemination and deepening of the analysis aimed at finding the types of the regions' innovative development is an extremely promising direction for future research.
Conclusion
The conducted study of the methodologies for evaluating the socio-economic and innovative development of the territory showed that, despite the importance of issues related to the evaluation of development effectiveness, the scientific foundations of the theory of evaluation, methods and means of developing indicators and criteria for evaluating effectiveness have not been fully worked out.
Analysis of research methodologies has revealed a number of common features, both for foreign and domestic research. First, despite the existence of papers (primarily abroad), based on qualitative research methods for regions, now there is a clear increase in interest in quantitative methods for evaluating innovation in the regional context. Secondly, almost all authors are characterized by a broad understanding of innovations and recognition of the diversity of factors influencing them, which led to the use of a sufficiently large number of indicators for their evaluation and the need to create complex, consistent, well-balanced, well-interpreted scorecards.
Researchers of innovations in the regions are faced, first of all, with the problem of the balance between the principles of a fairly complete description of the phenomena and processes under study, on the one hand, and maximum compactness, on the other. A compromise solution is the grouping of indicators by blocks (the first level) and, in some cases, by groups within the blocks (the second level), which reflect different aspects of innovation processes occurring in the regions. The authors of only five out of thirteen foreign studies divided the indicators into groups, and only
two of these works are characterized by a two-level hierarchical system.
The third common feature is the preferential use of official statistics. For example, the authors of only one foreign study and two - domestic ones decided to evaluate such a sphere as the quality of innovation policy in the regions.
Fourthly, a curious similarity is the lack of consensus about which indicators should be used to evaluate some or other aspects of innovation processes occurring in the regions. This is shown by a huge share of indicators in all analyzed works, which were used only in one of them: 75% - in foreign studies and 73% - in domestic studies.
However, like the development of science in general, the quantitative evaluation of the region's innovative development is gradually becoming a professional activity. The knowledge of the methodology of each statistical form used, the features of the national system for collecting statistical information, the understanding of its capabilities and limitations comes to the forefront. Also important is not so much the "innovativeness" of the approach but the regularity of monitoring, tracking changes in statistical tools, taking into account comments and suggestions from key users, balancing between new opportunities and the principle of conservatism, which allows comparing results over time.
In general, the developed and scientifically based systems for evaluating innovation in the regions should be linked to regional strategies for socio-economic (and innovative, if any) development, which implies first, an objective analysis of the current level and trends in the development of innovations, and secondly, setting targets (key performance indicators).
It is also important to shift from single studies to the annual release of the rating with a conventional and stable system of indicators, allowing to objectively measure the dynamics of the development of innovation processes in the region, not only in comparison with previous periods, but also taking into account the dynamics of development of other regions and the country as a whole.
Territorial features justify the need for regions to carry out a multilevel spatial policy that takes into account their specifics, the level of economic development, scientific, educational and innovative potential.
[1] Hollanders H., Arundel A. (2006) Global Innovation Scoreboard. Maastricht Economic and social Research and training center on Innovation and Technology. URL: http://arno.unimaas.nl/show.cgi?fid=15491.
[2] De Bruijn P., Lagendijk A. (2005) Regional innovation systems in the Lisbon strategy // European Planning Studies. 13(8). P. 1153-1172.
[3] Fraunhofer ISI / MERIT (2005) Enlarging the ERA: Identifying priorities for regional policy focusing on research and technological development in the New Member States and Candidate Countries. Final report. URL: http://www.edis.sk/ekes/regions finalreport 300505.pdf.
[4] Clarysse B., Muldur U. (2009) Regional cohesion in Europe? An analysis of how EU public RTD support influences the techno-economic regional landscape.
References
Directorate General for Science, Research and Development, European Commission. URL: ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/indicators/docs/ind wp uml.pdf .
[5] ESPON (2006) Territorial Impact of EU Research & Development Policy. ESPON Project 2.1.2. Final Report. URL: http://www.espon.eu/export/sites /default/Documents/Proiects/ESPQN2006Proiects/PolicvImpactProiects/RDPolicv Impact/fr-2,1.1 final.pdf.
[6] Hollanders H. (2006) European Regional Innovation Scoreboard 2006. Brussels: European Commission, DG Enterprise. URL: http://arno.unimaas.nl /show.cgi?fid=16269.
[7] Florida R. The Rise of the Creative Class: People Who Change the Future. -translated from English. M.: Classics-XXI Pub. - 421 p.
[8] Navarro M, Gibaja J.J., Aguado R., Bilbao-Osorio B. (2008) Patterns of innovation in the EU-25 regions: a typology and policy recommendations // Orkestra Working Paper Series in Territorial Competitiveness. 2008-04. (EN). URL: http://www.orkestra.deusto.es/images/publicaciones/archivos/ 000283 WPS2008- 04 English version.pdf (accessed 10 October 2013).
[9] IISP (2008) Social atlas of the Russian regions. Index of innovation. Official site of the Independent Institute of Social Policy. URL: http://www.socpol.ru/atlas/indexes/index innov.shtml # rating.
[10] Hollanders H., Tarantola S., Loschky A. (2009) Regional Innovation Scoreboard 2009. INNO Metrics Thematic Paper. Brussels: European Commission, DG Enterprise. URL: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies /innovation/files/ris-2009 en.pdf (accessed 10 October 2013).
[11] Hollanders H., van Cruysen A. (2009) Design, Creativity and Innovation: A Scoreboard Approach. INNO Metrics 2008 report. Brussels: European Commission, DG Enterprise.
[12] U.S. Economic Development Administration (2009) Innovation Index. In Crossing the Next Regional Frontier: Information and Analytics Linking Regional Competitiveness to Investment in a Knowledge-Based Economy.URL: http://www.statsamerica.org/innovation/reports/crossing regional frontier full report.pdf
[13] Gusev A.B. (2009) Formation of Ratings of Innovative Development of the Russian Regions and Development of Recommendations on Stimulation of Innovative Activity of the Russian Federation Entities. Official site "Capital of the country". URL: http://www.kapital-rus.ru/articles/article/2574.
[14] Wintjes R., Hollanders H. (2010) The regional impact of technological change in 2020. Synthesis report. URL: http://ec.europa.eu/regional policy/sources/docgener/studies/pdf /2010 technological change.pdf.
[15] Marsan A.G., Maguire K. (2011) Categorisation of OECD Regions Using Innovation-Related Variables // OECD Regional Development Working Papers. 2011/03. OECD Publishing. URL: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org /governance/categorisation-of-oecd-regions-using-innovation- related-variables 5kg8bf42qv7k-en.
[16] Hollanders H., Rivera Leon L., Roman L. (2012) Regional Innovation
Scoreboard 2012 // European Commission. URL: http://ec.europa.eu /enterprise/policies / innovation /policy / regional-innovation/index en.htm. [ 17] Hollanders H., Derbyshire J., Lewney R., Tij ssen R., Tarantola S., Rivera Leon L. (2012a) Regional Innovation Scoreboard 2012 - Methodology report. Brussels: European Commission, DG Enterprise.
[18] Shelomentseva V.P., Iftina E.A. Bespalyy S.V. et al. Methodological Approaches to Modernizing the Economy of Regions with Established Structure. -LAP Lambert Academic Pub., 2017. - 165 p.
[19] Shelomentseva V.P., Bespalyy S.V., Ifutina E.A. Predicting the Future of Old Industrial Regions, Based on Foresight Studies. 2017, ESPACIOS, Sociacion de Profesionales y Tecnicos del CONICIT.
[20] NAIRIT (2011) Rating of innovative activity in the regions of Russia 2010. Official website of the National Association of Innovations and Information Technology Development. URL: http://www.nair-it.ru/news/17.05.2011/217.
[21] AIRR (2012) Rating of innovative development of the Russian regions for management purposes (data of 2009-2010). Official site of the Association of Innovative Regions of Russia. URL: http://www.i-regions.org/materials/regional-research/2732/.
[22] Financial University (2012) Concept of formation of the index of innovative development of the Russian regions. Presentation of the Institute of Innovative Economics. Official site of the Financial University. URL: http://www.fa.ru/institutes/efo/Documents/ Index Presentation 2012.pdf.
[23] Gokhberg L.M., Gracheva G.A., Ditkovskiy K.A., Kirchik O.I., Kovaleva G.G., Kovaleva N.V., Kuznetsova V.I., Kuznetsova I.A., Kuznetsova T.E., Kutsenko E.S., Martynov D.M., Martynova S.V., Nechaeva E.G., Ognev I.A., Ratay T.V., Sagieva G.S., Fridlyanova S.Yu., Khot'ko D.A., Khramova E.B., Shuvalova O.R. (2012) Rating of Innovative Development of the Russian Federation Entities: analytical report/ed. L.M. Gohkberg. M.: NIU HSE. URL: http: //www. hse. ru/primarydata/rir2012/.
[24] Zheltova V.V. Scientific and Technological Foresight of the Russian Federation: Regional Aspects. Some conclusions of the study. Presentation of the report at the III Russian Venture Forum, St. Petersburg. The official site of the NorthWest CSR. URL: http://csr-nw.ru/upload/file category 171.pdf.
[25] The Global Competitiveness Report 2012-2013. - URL: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GlobalCompetitivenessReport_2012-13.pdf.
[26] The Global Innovation Index 2012: Stronger Innovation Linkages for Global Growth. - URL: http://www.globalinnovationindex.org/gii/main/fullreport/index.html.
[27] European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS) 2009. - URL: http://www.proinno-europe.eu/sites/default/files/page/10/03/I981-DG%20ENTR-Report%20EIS.pdf.
[28] International Innovation Index Country Ranking. - URL: http://stats.areppim.com/archives/insight_innovrank2011.pdf.
[29] Regional Innovation Scoreboard 2012. - URL: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/files/ris-2012_en.pdf.
[30] The Innovation Index.
http://www.statsamerica.Org/innovation/reports/sections2/4.pdf.
e 2, 2018
