CC BY
24
www.hjournal.ru
Journal of Institutional Studies, 2022, 14(1): 70-88 DOI: 10.17835/2076-6297.2022.14.1.070-088
THE IMPACT OF NON-ROOTED SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONAL AND REGIONAL
INNOVATION SYSTEMS
WADIM STRIELKOWSKI,
Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague, Czech Republic, e-mail: strielkowski@pef.czu.cz;
OXANA MUKHORYANOVA,
North-Caucasus Federal University, Stavropol, Russian Federation, e-mail: omukhorianova@ncfu.ru;
ANASTASIA KALNAYA,
North-Caucasus Federal University, Stavropol, Russian Federation, e-mail: akalnaia@ncfu.ru
Citation: Strielkowski W., Mukhoryanova O., Kalnaya A. (2022). The impact of non-rooted social institutions on the development of national and regional innovation systems. Journal of Institutional Studies 14(1): 70-88. DOI: 10.17835/2076-6297.2022.14.1.070-088
Regional innovation systems (RIS) not only develop local policies to expand regional science, technology, and innovation capabilities at the firm level, but also promote informal and formal institutional and organizational innovation. Thence, it appears crucial to analyse the similarities and differences of regional innovation systems and to explore the complexity of developing and implementing innovation policies on the ground in different regional innovation systems while noting important policy implications for regional innovation management and institutional arrangements for updating them systematically. Our paper demonstrates that when organizations and business companies wish to immerse themselves into the social and business environment, they have to devise tools and mechanisms aimed at supporting the development and implementation of regional social innovations which enhance the processes of the social responsibility. Our paper offers a comprehensive discussion that focuses on the national and regional innovation systems, their macrostructure, as well as their profile. Based on the ranking of the Global Innovation Index, we select the countries from the groups with different income levels and analyse them with respect to the impact of non-rooted social institutions (R&D, education, funds, public infrastructure, etc.) on the development of national and regional innovation systems. Our results yield the interdependence between the creation of clusters or the building of innovative ecosystems and the effectiveness of the economic and social development fostered by the innovation processes emerging in these systems.
Keywords: innovations; institutional change; social institutions; innovative systems
Acknowledgement: This study was supported by the grant from the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (project No. 20-010-00025 "Transactional Genesis of Regional Innovation Systems").
JEL: L83, O31, O35, O43
© CpueAKOBCKki B., MyxopbAHOBa 0., KaAbHan A., 2022
ВЛИЯНИЕ НЕУКОРЕНЕННЫХ СОЦИАЛЬНЫХ ИНСТИТУТОВ НА РАЗВИТИЕ НАЦИОНАЛЬНЫХ И РЕГИОНАЛЬНЫХ ИННОВАЦИОННЫХ СИСТЕМ
ВАДИМ СТРИЕЛКОВСКИ,
Чешский университет естественных наук в Праге,
Прага, Чешская Республика, e-mail: strielkowski@pef.czu.cz;
ОКСАНА МУХОРЬЯНОВА,
ФГАОУВО «Северо-Кавказский федеральный университет»,
Ставрополь, Российская Федерация, e-mail: omukhorianova@ncfu.ru;
АНАСТАСИЯ КАЛЬНАЯ,
ФГАОУ ВО «Северо-Кавказский федеральный университет»,
Ставрополь, Российская Федерация, e-mail: akalnaia@ncfu.ru
Citation: Стриелковски В., Мухорьянова О., Кальная А. (2022). Влияние неукорененных социальных институтов на развитие национальных и региональных инновационных систем. Journal of Institutional Studies 14(1): 70-88. DOI: 10.17835/2076-6297.2022.14.1.070-088
Региональные инновационные системы (РИС) не только разрабатывают местную политику для расширения регионального научного, технологического и инновационного потенциала на уровне фирм, но также способствуют неформальным и формальным институциональным и организационным инновациям. Следовательно, представляется крайне важным проанализировать сходства и различия региональных инновационных систем и изучить сложность разработки и реализации инновационной политики на местах в различных региональных инновационных системах, отметив при этом важные политические последствия для регионального управления инновациями и институциональных механизмов для их систематического обновления. В случае, если организации или компании хотят создать эффективную систему взаимодействия с социальной и бизнес-средой, они должны создать соответствующие структуры и механизмы для поддержки разработки и внедрения социальных инноваций в регионе, способствуя тем самым практике социальной ответственности. В статье дано определение национальных и региональных инновационных систем, их макроструктуры и профиля. На основе рейтинга Глобального инновационного индекса выбраны страны из групп с разным уровнем дохода, по которым проведен анализ влияния неукорененных социальных институтов (НИОКР, образование, фонды, государственная инфраструктура и т.д.) на развитие национальных и региональных инновационных систем. Определено влияние кластеризации и создания инновационных экосистем на результативность инновационного развития исследуемых систем.
Ключевые слова: инновации; институциональные изменения; социальные институты; инновационные системы
Благодарность: Данное исследование опубликовано за счет средств гранта Российского фонда фундаментальных исследований (проект № 20-010-00025 «Трансакционный генезис региональных инновационных систем»).
Introduction
It is quite clear that the creation of the national innovation system is driven by the technical, scientific, and intellectual potential, and the rising demand for technology- and knowledgeintensive products. In addition, this process is fostered by the existence of specific conditions aimed at supporting innovations, as well as the adequate state of the technical infrastructure and innovation activities (Beilin et al., 2019; Labunska et al., 2019; Kolomytseva and Pavlovska, 2020).
In innovation systems research, regional innovation systems (RIS) facilitate the rapid dissemination of knowledge, skills and best practices across geographic are as larger than cities but smaller than countries. RIS represents a functional economic space which is often interstate and, in some cases, even cross-border. Within this space, a network of actors important to the innovation process, such as companies, research and educational institutions and public authorities.
With regard to the above, Williamson (1965) studied the factors influencing the relative proportion of innovations in large firms and found that innovations create a pervasive pressure to further innovate among all the rivaling firms in a given sector or industry.
Furthermore, it can be shown that when a national innovation system is being shaped up, it is necessary to take into account objective (geography and natural and common pool resources and public goods, availability and viability of state institutions, features and forms of entrepreneurship) and subjective (availability of labor resources, features of the development of state institutions and forms of activity of business entities) factors (Maskus and Reichman, 2004; Ostrom, 2010; Halewood, 2013; or Ostrom, 2017).
Most authors agree that the national innovation system is a set of interrelated elements (organizations, structures) engaged in production and the implementation of scientific knowledge and technologies in a certain institutional environment (or governance), which is a regulatory framework, forms, methods and intensity of interaction of all entities engaged in innovative market activities with other segments of the national economy (Williamson, 2000; Edwards-Schachter, 2018; Zemtsov and Kotsemir, 2019; Dahesh et al., 2020; Kalyugina et al., 2020; Pyanov and Kalyugina, 2021; Lam et al., 2021).
In general terms, any national innovation system is comprised of the two main building blocks: i) production and research carried out by the state and private companies, higher education institutions (HEIs), scientific laboratories, incubators or the technology parks) and ii) activities aimed at supporting infrastructure that are represented by the legal, financial and social norms and institutions that create the right business climate and conditions for effective innovations (Ostrom, 2000; Laspia et al., 2021; De Almeida Ribeiro et al., 2021). The groups of elements of the national innovation system, therefore, include the following sectors: business, government, research, technology transfer organizations, organized civil society, partners, including those from abroad (Khoshnava et al., 2019; Gonzalez-Martinez et al., 2021).
Speaking about the regional innovation system, one can single out institutional, functional and integrated approaches. Within the framework of the institutional approach, the regional innovation system (RIS) can be viewed as a set of institutions (organizations, authorities, research and educational institutions, non-profit organizations, etc.) that ensure the creation, storage and dissemination of new knowledge and technologies in a certain territory (Maksum et al., 2020; Turker and Ozmen, 2021).
The functional approach involves building the links between all participants of the RIS that helps to create legal, economic, social, and organizational conditions for introducing innovations to the given counties or regions helping the economic growth in capitalist economies (North, 2005; Glazar and Strielkowski, 2010; Kofler and Marcher, 2018; Gorlov et al., 2018; Strielkowski et al., 2019; Ghazinoory et al., 2020; Diepenmaat et al., 2020).
This paper is structured as follows: Section 2 describes the ranking and the positioning of the regional innovations systems. Section 3 contemplates over the influence of rooted and non-
rooted social institutions. Section 4 offers the comprehensive analysis and comparison of the following six countries: Switzerland, the Republic of Korea, the Czech Republic, the Russian Federation, Belarus, and Madagascar. Section 5 draws the lessons for building resilient innovation systems based on the experience of the most successful countries. Finally, Section 6 closes the paper offering the overview of the main outcomes and conclusions as well as the array of policy implications.
Institutional aspects of the regional innovation systems
According to North (1994), institutions represent the humanly created constraints helping to structure human interactions. In addition, institutions make sense when these human interactions involve transactions that bear some costs (Williamson, 1981; Coase, 2013). Promoting regional innovation systems includes the interactions between human and institutions and definitely incurs the costs.
The regional innovation policy includes a broader set of actions, such as specific support to improve the absorptive capacity of local enterprises or disseminate knowledge so that local enterprises benefit from interaction with an organization in a cluster (Asheim et al., 2019). Policies are developed taking into account the fact that local learning in regional innovation systems is largely dependent on external knowledge and incentives from the experience of interacting with external agents. This requires giving actors involved in the regional innovation system the opportunity to share their views and ideas when it comes to knowing how the regional dynamics of knowledge and innovation work (Lema et al., 2018). This is based on the assumption that regions are made up of numerous actors and stakeholders that constantly interact in the evaluation process. When discussing RIS activities, potential and effectiveness can be used to distinguish different system and policy options, and most studies that explore and describe the relationship between the institutions, organizations, and innovation activities within RIS use qualitative assessments (Acs et al., 2018; Aguinis et al., 2020).
Focusing on developing a small number of core industries might be important for achieving greater innovation activity. In RIS, cluster analysis focuses on all the connections and interactions that exist between different entities and people that lead to the efficient creation of innovations, new products, and services (Fernandes et al., 2021). By comparison, traditional neoclassical economic approaches have focused on networks that have homogeneous companies producing the same products, but the cluster has proven to be a robust alternative because it offers a different perspective on RIS, in the sense that it supports interaction theories based on an innovation (North, 2016; Urbina and Ruiz-Villaverde, 2019).
While this approach can be very successful in regions with strong innovation systems, imitation in less developed regions is unlikely to deliver the same benefits. With a series of studies of various forms of European corporatism and the organization of economic interests, there has been increasing attention to the differences between national and regional economic coordination and control systems and their mutual dependencies, revealing significant differences in innovation activity across major industries in the developed countries (Papanastassiou et al., 2020). These two processes can become a starting point for advanced development (prototyping in production) and research (prototyping in the system), vital areas of technological renewal of regions and countries with less developed innovation potential (Andreoni, 2018; Gerlitz and Prause, 2021).
Quite often, regional innovative system is considered to be represented by a set of interconnected economic agents and activities that are tied by the permanent stable relationships and contribute to the effectiveness of the implementation of innovative processes in a given region or country (Garcia-Muiña et al., 2018; Aragón Amonarriz et al., 2019; Marinets and Kalyugina, 2019). Various authors interpret the structure of the regional innovation system in different ways. Some researchers consider RIS as a general set of institutions that take care of the creation, preservation as well as the transfer of knowledge and skills (Nambisan et al., 2018; Antunes and Pinheiro, 2020). Others divide the elements of RIS directly into the subjects of innovation and organizations that provide their infrastructure
(Gozman et al., 2018; Rehak et al., 2019; Weiner et al., 2021). In the literature, one can come across a division of the elements of RIS into three blocks: those that provide the generation of knowledge and skills, their commercialization and promotion and/or creation of conditions for their implementation (Dannenberg et al., 2018; Shmeleva et al., 2021). Nevertheless, most of the authors agree that RIS is an open system that not only receives knowledge, resources and information from the outside, but also directs them to the external environment (Barham et al., 2020; Al-Breiki et al., 2020).
Before talking about the impact of rooted and non-rooted social institutions in national and regional innovation systems, we should consider what they are (Fig. 1). The rooted social institutions in regional innovation systems of various types are distinguished by the several types of arrangements.
First, they can be distinguished by the national features of relationships that allow the agents on the market to enhance the development of innovative systems (e.g. confessions, communities, etc.) (see Bachev and Terziev, 2018).
Fig. 1. Rooted and non-rooted social institutions in national and regional innovation systems
Source: Own results.
Second, they are supported by the informal business communities and non-profit organizations that provide effective interactions between all agents on the market who take part in the development of innovations via the creation of a comfortable business environment for generating novel and innovative ideas (De Arruda Torres, 2018).
Third, they are enhanced by the institutions of informal power which help all the subjects of innovative activity who rely upon a personal respect towards formal and informal leaders to strive for the development of regional innovations (Petersen and Kruss, 2021). The informal leaders can be determined using their competencies: for example, a teacher who is able to captivate with his subject can form a working group among students in a certain area of innovative development.
Furthermore, personal attitude of the official leadership of the territory to the importance of developing innovative systems, providing over-support for the development of innovations (Strielkowski and Hoschle, 2016). In this case, they are based on the natural and environmental factors that make it possible to conduct research and experiments utilizing the unique resources.
Another serious issues might be a low level of personnel potential for innovative development of the territory, lack of qualified innovators, contributing to the development of "forced" (inventions "on order" or "according to plan") or "accidental" (inventions or innovations without the necessary knowledge and skills) innovators (Akhmetshin et al., 2018).
On the contrary, there can be observed a high level of personnel potential for the innovative development of the territory, a large number of highly qualified innovators for whom the use of innovative technologies is a natural environment, and who, at the intersection of existing technologies, knowledge and competencies, form new innovative solutions (Tolstykh et al., 2020).
Influence of rooted and non-rooted social institutions
Generally, non-rooted social institutions for the development of national and regional innovation systems tend to be specifically crafted using the following elements: the legal framework, infrastructure facilities, personnel groups, expert consulting groups, and information and financial groups (Satalkina and Steiner, 2020). The non non-rooted social institutions in national and regional innovation systems of various types include:
• temporary and sectoral instruments of governance or the state support: concessional lending, reduction of the tax burden, cost compensation (see e.g. Williamson, 2005);
• state support and state-sponsored technologies that create conditions for the development of innovations "from above": industrial and technological clusters, technology parks, business incubators, centers for collective use, or the associations and associations of industrial enterprises, engineering centers);
• unified systems focused on the development and formation of human resources: universities, colleges, resource centers, associations / associations in the field of education for the innovation sector;
• expert and consulting institutions: innovation and consulting centers, subcontracting centers, technology transformation centers;
• information institutions: technology platforms, think tanks, statistics and monitoring centers;
• financial institutions: investment banks and credit organizations, business angels, budget funds for supporting enterprises in the innovation sector, and venture funds.
It becomes clear that rooted and non-rooted social institutions can either contribute to the development of regional innovation systems belonging to various types. In the same time, they can also hinder these regional innovations with a varying degree of efficiency. Let us consider examples of the positive and negative impact of these institutions (see Table 1).
Thence, assessing the impact of non-rooted social institutions on the development of national and regional innovation systems appears to be easier since it allows calculating the degree of influence of various variables on the innovation potential of a given region or country (Gamidullaeva et al., 2020). In the section that follows, we will consider the impact of non-rooted social institutions on the development of national and regional innovation systems, based on index calculated annually by the world intellectual property organization.
Table 1
The influence of rooted and non-rooted social institutions on the development of national and regional innovation systems of various types
Social institution Positive influence Negative influence
National, clan and confessional communities Financial support, family and national ties, or nepotism Customs or traditions that do not directly contribute to the process of the development of innovation ("I will do as my ancestors used to do for centuries")
Informal business communities Integration, cooperation, pooling of resources, building an effective vertical and horizontal industry business structure Poor understanding of the society and the economy development trends, "thinking inside the box", poor scientific rigor, interpersonal conflicts
The institution of informal power in the territory Influential leaders who can captivate, for example, young people and form initiative working groups Use of informal leadership for personal interests, protectionism, lobbying for one's own goals, subjectivity of the leader's opinion
Personal attitude of the official leadership of the territory to the importance of developing innovative systems Official encouragement of institutions for promoting the development of innovations, offering territorial support instruments Use of formal leadership for personal interests (rating, business of relatives), protectionism, lobbying for the interests of certain business groups, subjectivity of the opinion of a formal leader
Natural-climatic and natural-resource factors, geographical location of the territory The availability of a resource base for the development of innovations, the interest of investors, the formation of an infrastructure that promotes the development of innovations, the creation of special economic zones with attractive conditions for respondents Inappropriate and inefficient use, "wasting" of resources, the presence of corruption factors (for example, permission to conduct research to foreign partners that contribute to the innovative development of another country, groundless sale of the status of a resident of a special economic zone)
Low personnel potential for the innovative development of the territory The emergence of fundamentally new, non-standard ideas based on a low level of knowledge Low rates of development of the territory, lack of support and development of innovative ideas
High personnel potential of innovative development of the territory/system for personnel potential development and the creation of human resources Systematic and systematic development of innovations, formation of infrastructure for the development of innovative human resources potential of the territory (research centers, universities, boiling points, development points, centers of competence) Constant expectation from the territory of innovation can lead to the development of «pseudo-science», data manipulation and pseudo-scientific results for the sake of obtaining the intended official results
Temporary and sectoral instruments of state support / financial institutions A real short-term tool to support innovation-oriented enterprises, which at the start-up level often do not have the necessary financial resources and equipment Inconstancy of support measures, lack of a strict instrument for regulating the adequacy of participants' actions (loan rates and conditions for obtaining them for small innovative enterprises, conditions for obtaining subsidies and grants)
State production and technological tools Providing business with a place, information and equipment that can save its resources and use human capital (ideas, hypotheses, assumptions) Creation of bases that will not be in demand, not confirmed by a request from business and science, their creation only for the purpose of using budget funds
Expert consulting institutes/Information institutes The possibility of obtaining information, new knowledge, competent advice, using other people's successful practices, finding a partner or counterparty, the possibility of obtaining the necessary primary analytical arrays for individual use Unreliability, lack of demand, irrelevance of information, highly specialized/low level of qualification of specialists/experts
Source: Own results.
Comparing innovation systems and rankings in selected countries
In order to run a comparison of the innovation systems and rankings, we selected six countries from the 2021 rankings all of them displaying the varying scores: Switzerland, South Korea, the Czech Republic (these three countries are in the high-income group and perform above developmentally expected levels), the Russian Federation, Belarus (these two countries are in the upper-middle-income group and perform better than expected for development), and Madagascar (in the low-income group but perform better than expected for development).
Even though the comparison of the innovation systems of such different states as Switzerland, South Korea, the Czech Republic, Russia, Belarus and Madagascar might seem strange to some non-informed observer, our choice of these particular countries is not random but is based on their representation in the ranking conducted by the Global Innovation Index that is carried out by WIPO (2021). The six countries in question represent the right mix of the European countries (both the European Union Member States (Czech Republic) and non-EU countries (Switzerland)), East Asian countries (South Korea), post-Soviet states (Russia and Belarus), and African countries (Madagascar). Therefore, in our opinion, the countries represent the right mix of case studies that can be compared across and with each other in terms of their innovation systems (see Table 2 that follows).
Table 2
Ranking of countries by the level of innovation of the Global Innovation Index
2013 2018 2019 2020 2021
Country Rating in GGI Points Rating in GGI Points Rating in GGI Points Rating in GGI Points Rating in GGI Points
Switzerland 1 66,6 1 68,4 1 67,2 1 66,1 1 65,5
South Korea 18 53,3 12 56,6 11 56,6 10 56,1 5 59,3
Czechia 28 48,4 27 48,7 26 49,4 24 48,3 24 49,0
Russian Federation 62 37,2 46 37,9 46 37,6 47 35,6 45 36,6
Belarus 77 34,6 86 29,4 72 32,1 64 31,3 62 32,6
Madagascar 140 22,9 106 24,8 121 22,4 115 20,4 110 22,5
Source: WIPO (2021).
For the period between 2013 and 2021, Switzerland occupies the first place in the ranking while the other five countries selected by us as the subjects of this study also yield higher rating each year. Therefore, if in 2013 South Korea occupied the 18th position in the ranking, then in 2021 it entered the top five, the Czech Republic is slowly but surely rising to the top twenty, ranking 24th in the ranking in 2021. The Russian Federation has risen by 17 positions from 62 in 2013 to 45 in the ranking, the Republic of Belarus has risen from 77 in 2013 to 62 in 2021 at approximately the same pace, and Madagascar has practically risen from the lowest position in the 2013 ranking. of the year (ranked 140 out of 142) rose to rank 110 out of 132 in 2021.
All of the above helps us to derive the main strengths of the innovation management system in Switzerland. It becomes apparent that the main role in the conceptual scheme of innovation management in Switzerland is played by a systematic approach to the organization of innovation activities. Small and medium-sized businesses, universities, and institutions are responsible for the generation, dissemination and use of knowledge. The industrial clusters and innovation systems in the regions represent the national innovation system, and the national innovation capabilities provide the product as a market condition, education system, macroeconomic and regulatory context, communication infrastructure and market factors that ensure the growth of the competitiveness of Swiss companies and the creation of jobs. The strengths of the innovation management system in Switzerland are presented in the form of a table (see Table 3 that follows).
Table 3
Strengths of the innovation management system in Switzerland
Element of the innovation management system Main factors
Intellectual property protection Switzerland is a member of the European Patent Organization and operates the EPO patent office, so more than 90% of patents are checked for novelty and uniqueness. The IGE Institute of Intellectual Property is functioning
Legislation Law "On Support for Research and Innovation", Law "On Support of Higher Educational Institutions and Coordination with the Field of Higher Education"
A clear vertical of innovation management The parent organization is the Department of Economics, Education and Research, subordinated to the Department for Education, Research and Innovation, which is responsible for science and education at the international level, as well as participation in international joint research programs. About 3% of GDP is allocated to finance research and development. The private sector finances about 63% of research and development, especially in terms of experimental development
Swiss National Foundation SNF The SNF Foundation, the KTI Commission and the Swiss Academy of Sciences are responsible for organizing the innovation processes. The foundations conduct fundamental research (Bor), including applied research (Pasteur), as well as applied research (Edison). The main support tool is project financing. Every year, the Foundation supports about 4,500 doctoral students and 2,500 post-doctoral students through projects and programs
Education 6 major higher education institutions are important participants in the innovation management process.
Commissions The KTI Technology and Innovation Commission is the government's agent to support innovation by interacting with higher education institutions or nonprofit research organizations
Focal points Four Regional Focal Points: Western Switzerland, Central Switzerland, Northwestern Switzerland and Eastern Switzerland provide strong synergies to support innovation at the cantonal and regional level
Swiss innovation park Complements and strengthens the already existing and proven national innovation system and its various regional subsystems. Cantons, private sector companies and higher education institutions participate in the implementation of the innovation park without using federal budget funds
Swiss Association for Technology Transfer An association of individuals primarily involved in technology transfer and involved in collaborations between public and private research institutions and other non-profit research institutions. Moderates a single list of technology offerings from Swiss higher education institutions for the private sector
Centers of technological competence Non-university research institutes of national importance that interact as a legally independent entity with universities and the private sector. Financing is carried out on the principle of matching funds
Source: Own results.
In the European Innovation Ranking, which includes 36 countries, Switzerland also ranks 1st, including in terms of lifelong learning, international collaborative scientific publications, higher education by foreign citizens, public-private joint publications and the award of new doctoral degrees (European Commission, 2021).
However, even Switzerland has weaknesses in terms of innovation development: the export of high-tech products and knowledge services, the growth of employment in the business sector and the interaction of small and medium-sized enterprises with other companies in terms of innovation.
South Korea, which rapidly ascended in the Global Innovation Ranking by 13 positions in 8 years, attributes its success to the concentration of efforts on education and the transition to an industrial and export-oriented economy. The country is currently implementing the Basic Science and Technology Plan for the period 2018-2022, the main objectives of which are to expand opportunities in science,
technology and innovation with the existing development of human resources, create an innovation and technology ecosystem and ensure readiness for the 4th Industrial revolution with the development of new types of industry.
South Korea has a clear division of goals and objectives by levels of government. At the macro level, these goals are represented by priorities of the country's national policy, the scale of investments, as well as the creation of a regulatory framework and the allocation of resources (Lee and Park, 2020). At the meso level, there are centralized programs and agencies that foster R&D and help the management of program resources and their allocation, as well as program planning and management. At the micro level, through projects and researchers, it is the management of projects and their resources, as well as convergence and joint research (Hwang et al., 2019).
South Korea has a developed system of agencies that manage the development of innovations. The structure includes 8 main and 9 additional agencies managing R&D (Lee and Woo, 2020). The strengths of the innovation management system in South Korea are presented in Table 4.
Table 4
Strengths of the innovation management system in South Korea
Element of the innovation management system Providing factors
Intellectual property protection Leader in the number of patent applications per unit of GDP, 4th in the world in patent filings and 3rd in industrial design patent applications. However, South Korea is not a member of the Patent Law Treaty
Legislation General Law "On the Protection of Intellectual Property"
Clustering of industrial complexes Currently, the country has 45 industrial complexes and 78 mini-clusters included in them: • business conglomerates, the largest of which are Hyundai, Samsung, SK Group and LG; • industrial complexes; • mini-clusters — part of industrial complexes grouped around physical infrastructure
National innovation cluster Two types of clusters: • research type to support large-scale demonstration projects in new industries, as well as to commercialize the business model; • non-exploratory type at the level of cities and provinces to support the creation of associations
Export of innovations "Global Startups" are young firms actively involved in international trade. Main support from the private sector
Education Teaching programming at all levels of the educational system since 208. Supporting Universities with a Focus on Intellectual Property Creation
International cooperation The main areas of interaction are 5G networks, the Internet of things and cloud computing
Private financing Tax incentives for investment in research. The share of private investments is more than state investments from 2 to 5 times in different industries
Source: Own results.
The strengths of South Korea in the global innovation index, therefore, are: the patent system, high-tech exports, industrial developments by origin. However, South Korea also has weaknesses: a strict regulatory environment for managing innovation, weak interaction between industry, academia, and research organizations, weak enforcement of intellectual property rights, and active commercialization.
The Czech Republic, a small country that is located in the heart of Europe, also pursues the development of innovations, just like South Korea. Apart from the country's favorable location, it offers the favorable business climate and the excellent conditions for start-ups and other types of business companies (Bumberova and Milichovsky, 2020). Opening a business does not require much time and
money, the authorized capital of the company can be as little as 1 Czech krona and the documents are submitted to the Commercial Court after registration by a notary (Doing Business, 2020). There are fewer startups in the Czech Republic than the European average (42% versus 49.1%), but their structure is such (mainly games, entertainment, travel and web services), which makes it easy to find investors (Grmanova and Pukala, 2018). The geographical position of the Czech Republic makes it an obvious choice for the logistic hubs and seat of the multinational companies which also contributes to attracting the large numbers of foreign investors and foreign direct investments (FDI).
The system of interaction between market participants is working well in the country, entrepreneurial communities are being created, the Angel Investment Network system is operating, a network that unites more than 1.2 million entrepreneurs and investors around the world, so it is not difficult to find funding for the project. As a rule, startups in the Czech Republic are funded by their own funds, business angels and venture capital funds, as well as through crowdfunding (Zinecker et al., 2021).
There are also dozens of accelerators and incubators in the Czech Republic, which can also act as investors. Scientific and technical parks are actively developing: public-legal, private, combined, academic. Since 2011, the National Innovation System of the Czech Republic has set itself four main areas of development: advanced research, cooperation between business and science in the transfer of knowledge, support for entrepreneurship that generates innovation, and development of innovators (MIT Czech Republic, 2006).
In general, the Czech Republic tends to reduce or altogether stop the production of goods that are no longer competitive on the global markers (e.g. engineering, agriculture, glass, clothing and textile) and foster the development of innovative industries such as electrical engineering, electronics, chemical and food industries, special metallurgy, and tourism.
Lessons for building resilient innovation systems
As for Russia, one can observe a significant improvement in the country's position in the global innovation index: it moved from the 62nd place in 2013 to the 45th place in 2021. We can note the positive dynamics in the most components of this index: the sub-index of human capital and science, the development of technologies and the knowledge economy, the creative economy, the development of state institutions for guiding and supporting innovations. The share of Russian high-tech and knowledge-intensive products in the structure GDP soared from 20.2% in 2012 to 21.8% in 2019.
At the same time, Russia's weaknesses are: in terms of institutions - the quality of regulation of innovation development and the rule of law, in terms of infrastructure - a weak level of use of innovations in terms of energy efficiency and ISO certification, in terms of the level of market development — rules for attracting private investment, or the gross loan portfolio of microfinance organizations and transactions using venture capital (Lisin and Strielkowski, 2014; Szerb and Trumbull, 2018). Another weaknesses that can be noted are the indicators mapping the results of innovation and the level of development and the degree of freedom of mass media. In general, there is a very low proportion of organizations in Russia that innovate. In 2010, the share of organizations implementing organizational innovations was 3.2% but in 2018 it decreased to 2.1%, in terms of marketing innovations, the share of enterprises decreased from 2.2% to 1.3%, and the share of enterprises engaged in environmental innovation decreased from 4.7% in 2010 to 0.6% in 2019 (Bessonova and Battalov, 2019).
The share of innovative goods (works, services) in the total volume of shipped goods (work of services), which was 9.2% in 2013, decreased to 5.3% in 2019. The share of costs for technological innovations in the total volume of shipped goods (services) decreased from 2.9% in 2013 to 2.1% in 2019. The share of investment in fixed capital in GDP, which was 21.4% in 2013, was 20.6% in 2019 (Kovalenko et al., 2019). Infrastructural support for promoting the development of innovations is actively developing, in which three main elements can be distinguished:
• Banking sector (VEB.RF, VEB Innovations LLC, SME Bank JSC);
• venture companies investing in innovative technologies (JSC RVC, JSC Rusnano, JSC Rosinfokominvest);
• Specialized funds that make investments and innovative technologies, enterprises and industries (Fund for the Development of the Center for the Development and Commercialization
of New Technologies (Skolkovo Foundation), the Fund for Assistance in the Development of Small Forms of Enterprises in the Scientific and Technical Sphere, the Russian Fund for Technological Development, the Fund for Infrastructure and Educational programs).
Other institutions that appear to be important are the specialized structures that promote the development of innovations and start-ups. At the moment, in 56 regions of Russia there are 183 technoparks of which 88 are industrial technoparks (66 are already successfully operating and 22 are in the process of completion).
Hence, in order to accelerate innovative development in Russia, it might be necessary to start drawing from the best national practices of interaction between enterprises, innovative development institutions, and business entities, create conditions for attracting the private and foreign capital as well as reducing the bureaucratic procedures and "red tape".
In the Republic of Belarus, a state program of innovative development for the period 2021-2025 has been developed and is being implemented. One of the strengths of the Republic of Belarus in terms of innovation development is a strong legislative framework, which even includes a Comprehensive Forecast of Scientific and Technological Progress for 2021-2025 and for the period up to 2040.
Belarus, the Russian neighbor and long-term partner could boast a total of 443 innovative organizations in 2011. By 2015, this number decreased to 342, and by 2018 it increased again to 380. While in 2015, the share of innovative organizations to the total number of business companies in Belarus was 19.6%, in 2018 this number became 23.3%. If we talk about the share of innovatively active organizations in the total number of industrial organizations, then in 2015 this figure was 18.9%, and in 2018 it increased to 20.3% (Korotkevich et al., 2019).
As for the pace of development of innovations in the Republic of Belarus, if during the period 2016-2019 61 production facilities were put into operation, then only in 2019 there were 12 such production facilities, the total amount of project financing for the period 2016-2019 amounted to 9199.8 million rubles, and in 2019 2019 million rubles. The volume of production (works, services) for 2016-2019 was 3888.9 million rubles(including innovative products worth 2440.2 million rubles), and for 2019 — 1704.9 million rubles, (including innovative products worth666.3 million rubles) (Hrechyshkina and Samakhavets, 2018).
The number of innovative infrastructure entities in 2015 was 13 units, and in 2019 it increased to 26, the number of technology park residents was 101 residents in 2015, and in 2019 it increased to 184 residents. At the same time, the volume of output of products (works, services) by residents of technology parks increased by more than 4 times, amounting to 18.5 million rubles in 2019. The indicator of output produced for 1 rub. invested budgetary funds amounted to 3.27 rubles in 2019, while in 2015 it was 1.53 rubles (UNECE, 2020).
The main directions of promoting innovations in Belarus is the development of technology parks, an increase in the number of innovation-active organizations, the use of preferential tax rates in relation to them, as well as the exemption from value added tax, income tax, real estate, land, and customs duties. Belarussian national innovation system is also supported by training scientists based on the state demand as well as on the initiatives of private business entities. Another way of fostering innovations is the development of the following innovative industrial clusters based on the specific legal forms: a simple partnership, associations or unions of legal entities, or the clusters of an economic society. The problems of innovation development in the Republic of Belarus are:
• insufficient attractiveness of participation of organizations in scientific and technical programs in terms of the lack of a mechanism for granting the right to a reasonable risk, purchase from a single source of created products;
• low level of venture financing and budget financing of science;
• weaker conditions for the stimulation of scientific, technical, and innovative activities;
• small percentage of the high-tech enterprises in the national economy;
• weak level of development of technology transfer, underdevelopment of the intellectual property market and stimulation of inventive activity;
• imbalance in the regional innovative development of the capital;
• low level of attracting foreign direct investment and world technologies to the country's economy.
On the other side of the world, Madagascar represents one of the most dynamically developing countries on the African continent. For many years, the political instability holds back the innovative development of this country with the economy focused in agriculture, fishing, aquaculture, and tourism. The innovative potential of Madagascar today lies in the areas of diamond mining, vanilla production, as well as renewable energy (Raherinirina et al., 2021; Weber, 2021). Even though the past years had a negative impact on Madagascar's innovation potential, today's cooperation with other countries (in particular with Russia) provides this country with the new vectors of development and contributes to the development of its own innovations.
Table 5
The level of development of non-rooted social institutions in the development of national and regional innovation systems
An unrooted social institution Switzerland South Korea Czechia Russian Federation Belarus Madagascar
Intellectual property protection 2 2 2 2 3 3
A clear vertical of
innovation management at the state level 1 1 2 2 2 3
Clustering 2 1 2 1 1 2
Education, science 1 1 2 2 1 2
Private financing 1 2 1 3 2 3
Export of innovations 3 1 2 3 3 3
Interaction of market
participants in terms of 3 3 1 1 2 1
innovation development
Employment in knowledge-intensive industries 3 3 2 2 2 3
International cooperation 1 3 2 2 2 1
State infrastructure 3 3 1 1 1 2
Note: 1 — strong impact of social institutions; 2 — medium impact of social institutions; 3 — weak impact of social institutions.
Source: Own results.
The main factor in the attractiveness and competitiveness of Madagascar is a trained workforce, which attracts investors and can be a good motive for attracting external financial resources to innovative sectors of the economy (Tulu, 2021; Andriamampiandra et al., 2021). Table 5 above shows the overview of factors affecting the development of national and regional innovation systems (non-rooted social institutions) that can help us to see the differences in the tools and approaches implemented for the innovative development in each of the six countries that became the focus of our study. While the table is largely self-explanatory, it might be useful to add the explanation of the methodology used in it. The Table displays the selection of the unrooted social institutions and then the ranking is attributed to each of them for every country listed in our case study (we use the weights such as 1 - strong impact, 2 - medium impact, and 3 - weak impact based on our analysis of each country's example, global innovation ranking the methodology presented above).
Conclusions and implications
All in all, it becomes clear that a well-designed and balanced industrial and technological policy is required for strengthening the innovative regional potential and building strategic industries. The recent COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated this when it has forced us to adopt new ways of working, learning, and communicating.
Furthermore, given that improving education is often seen as a national priority along with the other goals such as improving public health, improving national security, and developing more sustainable energy sources, it is clear that all countries around the world need to develop a strong focus on education and development research compared to the other fields.
Recently, all around the world, there is an increase in total spending on R&D, industrial R&D conducted in services, as well as some profound changes in the structural organization of industrial R&D and innovations. Research in this field has paved the way for improved living standards, public health, and national security throughout the world. The openness of the innovation systems can keep researchers at the forefront of knowledge and help to attract international students and researchers who can make important contributions to the economy and society. During the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic crisis, the contributions of science, technology and innovation proved to be critical for addressing current health challenges and supporting productive efforts to rebuild the economy after the pandemic.
It appears today's institutions need to increase the incentive to innovate and make venture capital investment more attractive for the technological companies, thereby stimulating future innovation and entrepreneurship. Improve the reliability of the market-oriented technological innovation system, take enterprises as the main body, make the management structure and development mechanism of institutions of higher learning and research institutions more scientific, improve the military-civilian integration innovation mechanism (military-civilian integration), and greatly improve the overall efficiency innovation system. Further clarify the functional positioning of various innovative organizations, highlight the key driving role of innovative talents, strengthen the status of enterprises as the backbone and driving force of innovation, and make national-level scientific research institutions the foundation and leader of innovation. Let higher education institutions become the backbone and lifeblood of innovation. Innovative power, encourage and guide the development of new R&D institutions, give full play to the role of social science and technology organizations, and stimulate the vitality of various innovative entities. And systematically increase the potential of innovative participants.
To sum this all up that in order for any country to achieve a high level of innovative development, state support of the innovative management is required. Moreover, there should also be the generous support if science and education couple with a significant amount of private funding. On the other side of the spectrum are the countries with a low level of innovative development that rely upon local or temporary measures aimed at supporting economic and social development and innovations, clustering, exploiting the available human resources and labor force, and engaging into the active international cooperation.
СПИСОК ЛИТЕРАТУРЫ/REFERENCES
Acs Z.J., Estrin S., Mickiewicz T., Szerb L. (2018). Entrepreneurship, institutional economics, and economic growth: an ecosystem perspective. Small Business Economics 51(2): 501-514. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-0013-9 Aguinis H., Villamor I., Lazzarini S.G., Vassolo R.S., Amorós J.E., Allen D.G. (2020). Conducting management research in Latin America: why and what's in it for you? Journal of Management 46(5): 615-636. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320901581 Akhmetshin E.M., Dzhavatov D.K., Sverdlikova E.A., Sokolov M.S., Avdeeva O.A., Yavkin G.P. (2018). The influence of innovation on social and economic development of the Russian regions. European Research Studies 21: 767-776. Al-Breiki H., Rehman M.H.U., Salah K., Svetinovic D. (2020). Trustworthy blockchain oracles: review, comparison, and open research challenges. IEEE Access 8: 85675-85685. https://doi.org/10.1109/ ACCESS.2020.2992698
Andriamampiandra M., Andriamitsiriony M.H.J., Razaranaina J.C. (2021). The Strong Presence of Chinese Investment in Madagascar: Threat or Opportunity? Modern Economy 12(5): 919-928. https://doi.org/10.4236/me.2021.125046
Andreoni A. (2018). The architecture and dynamics of industrial ecosystems: diversification and innovative industrial renewal in Emilia Romagna. Cambridge Journal of Economics 42(6): 1613— 1642. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bey037 Antunes H.D.J.G., Pinheiro P.G. (2020). Linking knowledge management, organizational learning and
memory. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 5(2): 140-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjik.2019.04.002 Aragón Amonarriz C., Iturrioz C., Narvaiza L., Parrilli M.D. (2019). The role of social capital in regional innovation systems: Creative social capital and its institutionalization process. Papers in Regional Science 98(1): 35-51. https://doi.org/10.1111/pirs.12329 Asheim B.T. (2019). Smart specialisation, innovation policy and regional innovation systems: what about new path development in less innovative regions? Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 32(1): 8-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2018.1491001 Bachev H., Terziev D. (2018). A study on institutional, market and natural environment impact on agrarian sustainability in Bulgaria. Journal of Environmental Management & Tourism 9(3): 452478. https://doi.org/10.14505//jemt.v9.3(27).06 Barham H., Dabic M., Daim T., Shifrer D. (2020). The role of management support for the implementation of open innovation practices in firms. Technology in Society 63: 101282. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101282 Beilin I.L., Khomenko V.V., Kalenskaya N.V. (2019). Institutional aspects of the cluster development of the regional economic system. Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews 7(6): 192-196. https://doi. org/10.18510/hssr.2019.7637 Bessonova E., Battalov R. (2019). Innovative development of the Russian economy: formation of support mechanism based on the world's experience. Economic Annals-XXI 180(11-12): 97-109. https://doi.org/10.21003/ea.V180-11 Bumberová V., Milichovsky F. (2020). Influence of determinants on innovations in small KIBS firms in the
Czech Republic before COVID-19. Sustainability 12(19): 7856. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12197856 Coase R.H. (2013). The problem of social cost. The Journal of Law and Economics 56(4): 837-877.
https://doi.org/10.1086/674872 Dahesh M.B., Tabarsa G., Zandieh M., Hamidizadeh M. (2020). Reviewing the intellectual structure and evolution of the innovation systems approach: A social network analysis. Technology in Society 63: 10139. https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.techsoc.2020.101399 Dannenberg P., Diez J.R., Schiller D. (2018). Spaces for integration or a divide? New-generation growth corridors and their integration in global value chains in the Global South. Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie 62(2): 135-151. https://doi.org/10.1515/zfw-2017-0034 De Almeida Ribeiro J., Ladeira M.B., de Faria A.F., Barbosa M.W. (2021). A reference model for science and technology parks strategic performance management: An emerging economy perspective. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 59: 101612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jengtecman.2021.101612
De Arruda Torres P.M. (2018). An overview on strategic design for socio-technical innovation. Strategic
Design Research Journal 11(3): 186-192. https://doi.org/10.4013/sdrj.2018.113.02 Diepenmaat H., Kemp R., Velter M. (2020). Why sustainable development requires societal innovation and cannot be achieved without this. Sustainability 12(3): 1270. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12031270 Doing Business (2020). Economy Profile Czech Republic. Available at: https://www.doingbusiness.org/
content/dam/doingBusiness/country/c/czech-republic/CZE.pdf (accessed on 10.01.2022) Edwards-Schachter M. (2018). The nature and variety of innovation. International Journal of
Innovation Studies 2(2): 65-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijis.2018.08.004 European Commission (2021). European innovation scoreboard. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/ info/research-and-innovation/statistics/performance-indicators/european-innovation-scoreboard_ en (accessed on 15.01.2022) Fernandes C., Farinha L., Ferreira J.J., Asheim B., Rutten R. (2021). Regional innovation systems: what can we learn from 25 years of scientific achievements? Regional Studies 55(3): 377-389. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2020.1782878
Gamidullaeva L.A., Vasin S.M., Wise N. (2020). Increasing small- and medium-enterprise contribution to local and regional economic growth by assessing the institutional environment. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 27(2): 259-280. https://doi.org/10.1108/ JSBED-07-2019-0219
Garcia-Muiña F.E., González-Sánchez R., Ferrari A.M., Settembre-Blundo D. (2018). The paradigms of Industry 4.0 and circular economy as enabling drivers for the competitiveness of businesses and territories: The case of an Italian ceramic tiles manufacturing company. Social Sciences 7(12): 255. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci7120255 Gerlitz L., Prause G.K. (2021). Cultural and Creative Industries as Innovation and Sustainable Transition Brokers in the Baltic Sea Region: A Strong Tribute to Sustainable Macro-Regional Development. Sustainability 13(17): 9742. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179742 Ghazinoory S., Nasri S., Ameri F., Montazer G.A., Shayan A. (2020). Why do we need 'Problem-oriented Innovation System (PIS)'for solving macro-level societal problems? Technological Forecasting and Social Change 150: 119749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119749 Glazar O., Strielkowski W. (2010). Turkey and the European Union: possible incidence of the EU accession on migration flows. Prague Economic Papers 3: 218-235. https://doi.org/10.18267/j. pep.373
González-Martinez P., García-Pérez-De-Lema D., Castillo-Vergara M., Bent Hansen P. (2021). Systematic Review of The Literature on The Concept of Civil Society in The Quadruple Helix Framework. Journal of technology management & innovation 16(4): 85-95. https://doi.org/10.4067/ S0718-27242021000400085 Gorlov S., Kalyugina S., Hussein L. (2018). Formation of a mechanism for managing the sustainable development of the industrial complex in the context of globalization of economic processes. Vestnik Severo-Kavkazskogo federal'nogo universiteta 1(64): 57-62. Gozman D., Liebenau J., Mangan J. (2018). The innovation mechanisms of fintech start-ups: insights from SWIFT's innotribe competition. Journal of Management Information Systems 35(1): 145179. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2018.1440768 Grmanova E., Pukala R. (2018). Efficiency of insurance companies in the Czech Republic and Poland.
Oeconomia Copernicana 9(1): 71-85. https://doi.org/10.24136/oc.2018.004 Halewood M. (2013). What kind of goods are plant genetic resources for food and agriculture? Towards the identification and development of a new global commons. International Journal of the Commons 7(2): 278-312. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.412 Hrechyshkina O., Samakhavets M. (2018). Importance of foreign direct investment in financing for innovative development of the Republic of Belarus. Marketing and Management of Innovations (4): 339-348. https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2018.4-29 Hwang B.Y., Bae E.S., Hong H.D., Kim D.C. (2019). Operational-efficiency improvement of public R and D management agencies in South Korea. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 5(1): 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc5010013 Kalyugina S., Pyanov A., Strielkowski W. (2020). Threats and risks of intellectual security in Russia in the conditions of world globalization. Journal of Institutional Studies 12(1): 117-127. https:// doi.org/10.17835/2076-6297.2020.12.1.117-127 Khoshnava S.M., Rostami R., Zin R.M., Streimikiené D., Yousefpour A., Strielkowski W., Mardani A. (2019). Aligning the criteria of green economy (GE) and sustainable development goals (SDGs) to implement sustainable development. Sustainability 11(17): 4615. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174615 Kofler I., Marcher A. (2018). Inter-organizational networks of small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) in the field of innovation: a case study of South Tyrol. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship 30(1): 9-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2017.1401202 Kolomytseva O., Pavlovska A. (2020). The role of universities in the national innovation system. Baltic
Journal of Economic Studies 6(1): 51-58. https://doi.org/10.30525/2256-0742/2020-6-1-51-58 Korotkevich A., Karachun I., Marushka D., Vashchyla H. (2019). Technological Parks, Clusters, and Innovation Networks: Expected Transformation of Innovative Sector. In: Sergi, B.S. (ed.).
Modeling Economic Growth in Contemporary Belarus (Entrepreneurship and Global Economic Growth), Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 73-87. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-83867-695-720191006
Kovalenko K.E., Bakhvalov S.Y., Zekiy A.O., Vikulina V.V., Tinkov S.A., Tkacheva T.V. (2019). Key indicators of innovation activity of Russia (from 2011 to 2017). Journal of Entrepreneurship Education 22(3): 1-7.
Labunska S., Gavkalova N., Pylypenko A., Prokopishyna O. (2019). Cognitive instruments of public management accountability for development of national innovation system. Public Policy and Administration 18(3): 114-124. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ppaa.18.3.24727 Lam L., Nguyen P., Le N., Tran K. (2021). The relation among organizational culture, knowledge management, and innovation capability: Its implication for open innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 7(1): 66. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7010066 Laspia A., Sansone G., Landoni P., Racanelli D., Bartezzaghi E. (2021). The organization of innovation services in science and technology parks: Evidence from a multi-case study analysis in Europe. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 173: 121095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. techfore.2021.121095
Lee J.G., Park M.J. (2020). Evaluation of technological competence and operations efficiency in the defense industry: The strategic planning of South Korea. Evaluation and Program Planning 79: 101775. https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.evalprogplan.2019.101775 Lee J.H., Woo J. (2020). Green new deal policy of South Korea: Policy innovation for a sustainability
transition. Sustainability 12(23): 10191. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122310191 Lema R., Rabellotti R., Gehl Sampath P. (2018). Innovation trajectories in developing countries: Co-evolution of global value chains and innovation systems. The European Journal of Development Research 30(3): 345-363. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-018-0149-0 Lisin E., Strielkowski W. (2014). Modelling new economic approaches for the wholesale energy
markets in Russia and the EU. Transformations in Business & Economics 13 (2B): 566-580. Maksum I.R., Rahayu A.Y.S., Kusumawardhani D. (2020). A social enterprise approach to empowering micro, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in Indonesia. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 6(3): 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6030050 Marinets I., Kalyugina S. (2019). Socio-ethical aspects of the organization's innovation policy. Vestnik
Severo-Kavkazskogo federal'nogo universiteta 6(75): 138-144. Maskus K.E., Reichman J.H. (2004). The globalization of private knowledge goods and the privatization of global public goods. Journal of International Economic Law 7(2): 279-320. https:// doi.org/10.1093/jiel/7.2.279 MIT Czech Republic. National Innovation Strategy of the Czech Republic. Available at: https://www.
mpo.cz/dokument11688.html (accessed on 14.01.2022) Nambisan S., Siegel D., Kenney M. (2018). On open innovation, platforms, and entrepreneurship.
Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 12(3): 354-368. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1300 North D.C. (1994). Economic performance through time. The American Economic Review 84(3), 359368. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2118057 North D.C. (2005). Capitalism and economic growth. In: Nee, V., Richard Swedberg (eds.). The
economic sociology of capitalism, Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp. 41-52. North D.C. (2016). Institutions and economic theory. The American Economist 61(1): 72-76. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0569434516630194 Ostrom E. (2000). Collective action and the evolution of social norms. Journal of economic perspectives
14(3): 137-158. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.14.3.137 Ostrom E. (2010). Beyond markets and states: polycentric governance of complex economic systems.
American Economic Review 100(3): 641-672. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.3.641 Ostrom E. (2017). Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. In: Campbell, T., Barry, C., Lawford-Smith, H. (eds.). Global Justice., London, Routledge, pp. 423-430. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315254210
Papanastassiou M., Pearce R., Zanfei A. (2020). Changing perspectives on the internationalization of R&D and innovation by multinational enterprises: A review of the literature. Journal of International Business Studies 51(4): 623-664. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-019-00258-0 Petersen I.H., Kruss G. (2021). Universities as change agents in resource-poor local settings: An empirically grounded typology of engagement models. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 167: 120693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120693 Pyanov A., Kalyugina S. (2021). Social production complexes as an innovative form of development of social entrepreneurship in a transitional economy. In: Shapovalov,V., Igropulo, I. (eds.). University educational programs as a resource for the development of social entrepreneurship in the region. Materials of the All-Russian scientific and practical conference with international participation, Stavropol, NCFU Press, pp. 21-28. Raherinirina A., Fandresena T.S., Hajalalaina A.R., Rabetafika H., Rakotoarivelo R.A., Rafamatanantsoa F. (2021). Probabilistic modelling of COVID-19 dynamic in the context of Madagascar. Open Journal of Modelling and Simulation 9(3): 211-230. https://doi.org/10.4236/ ojmsi.2021.93014
Rehak D., Senovsky P., Hromada M., Lovecek T. (2019). Complex approach to assessing resilience of critical infrastructure elements. International journal of critical infrastructure protection 25: 125-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcip.2019.03.003 Satalkina L., Steiner G. (2020). Digital entrepreneurship and its role in innovation systems: A systematic literature review as a basis for future research avenues for sustainable transitions. Sustainability 12(7): 2764. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12072764 Shmeleva N., Gamidullaeva L., Tolstykh T., Lazarenko D. (2021). Challenges and Opportunities for Technology Transfer Networks in the Context of Open Innovation: Russian Experience. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 7(3): 197. https://doi.org/10.3390/ joitmc7030197
Strielkowski W., Hoschle F. (2016). Evidence for economic convergence in the EU: The analysis of past EU enlargements. Technological and economic development of Economy 22(4): 617-630. https:// doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2014.890138 Strielkowski W., Kalyugina S., Mukhoryanova O. (2019). Managing human potential and youth social
entrepreneurship in peripheral regions. Management Research & Practice 11(3): 41-51. Szerb L., Trumbull W.N. (2018). Entrepreneurship development in Russia: is Russia a normal country? An empirical analysis. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 25(6): 902-929. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-01-2018-0033 Tolstykh T., Gamidullaeva L., Shmeleva N. (2020). Elaboration of a mechanism for sustainable enterprise development in innovation ecosystems. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 6(4): 95. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6040095 Tulu A.H. (2021). The Relation of Investment Incentives and Inflow of FDI: Case of Developing Countries
and Ethiopia. Journal of Economy 6(5): 98-103. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijeee.20210605.13 Turker D., Ozmen Y.S. (2021). How do social entrepreneurs develop technological innovation? Social
Enterprise Journal 17(1): 63-93. https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-05-2020-0034 UNECE (2020). Belarus: Sub-regional Innovation Policy Outlook. Available at: https://unece.org (accessed on 20.01.2022)
Urbina D.A., Ruiz-Villaverde A. (2019). A critical review of homo economicus from five approaches.
American Journal of Economics and Sociology 78(1): 63-93. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12258 Weber M. (2021). A puzzle: the environment/development constellation in Madagascar. Globalizations
18(6): 947-965. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2020.1859762 Weiner J., Francois C., Stone-Johnson C., Childs J. (2021). Keep safe, keep learning: principals' role in creating psychological safety and organizational learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Education 5: 282. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.618483 Williamson O.E. (1965). Innovation and market structure. Journal of Political Economy 73(1): 67-73. https://doi.org/10.1086/258993
Williamson O.E. (1981). The economics of organization: The transaction cost approach. American
Journal of Sociology 87(3): 548-577. https://doi.org/10.1086/227496 Williamson O.E. (2000). The new institutional economics: taking stock, looking ahead. Journal of
Economic Literature 38(3): 595-613. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.38.3.595 Williamson O.E. (2005). The economics of governance. American Economic Review 95(2): 1-18. https://
doi.org/10.1257/000282805774669880 WIPO (2021). Available at: https://www.wipo.int/global_innovation_index/en/ (accessed on 20.01.2022) Zemtsov S., Kotsemir M. (2019). An assessment of regional innovation system efficiency in Russia: the application of the DEA approach. Scientometrics 120(2): 375-404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03130-y
Zinecker M., Skalicka M., Balcerzak A.P., Pietrzak M.B. (2021). Business angels in the Czech Republic: Characteristics and a classification with policy implications. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja: 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2021.1890179
