Indicators System for Modern Regional Innovation Systems

Indicators System for Modern Regional Innovation Systems: Comparison

Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Camila Xu and Version 1 by Wadim Strielkowski.

In general terms, the features of the innovation strategies of the countries that affect the indicators for evaluating the effectiveness of their national and regional systems differ in many ways.

innovations
national innovation system
regional innovation systems

1. Introduction

In today’s highly competitive global economy, innovation has emerged as a key driver of economic growth and development (Etim and Daramola 2020; Ma and Zhu 2022; Kaftan et al. 2023). Recognizing this, governments and policymakers around the world have increasingly focused on fostering regional innovation systems (RISs) to enhance their countries’ competitiveness and attract investment (Isaksen et al. 2022; Volchik et al. 2023). Regional innovation systems constitute an integral part of national innovation systems (NISs) (Kolomytseva and Pavlovska 2020; Chung 2002). Distinguishing between regional and national innovation systems is essential for comprehending the complexities of innovation dynamics within any given country (Satalkina and Steiner 2020). While both systems share common elements, they differ in scope, scale, and interplay of actors. Several key differences must be considered when analyzing these systems: (i) geographic scales setting the context; (ii) varying involved actors; (iii) different specialization and innovation clusters; (iv) changing policy frameworks; (v) nuances in knowledge flows and spillovers; and (vi) assorted impacts of global trends and competition. Thence, the dashboard in the global innovation tracking system is represented by investment in science and innovation, technological progress, and adoption of various technologies, as well as the socio-economic impacts (Park and Choi 2019; Coutinho and Au-Yong-Oliveira 2023).

However, in today’s highly globalized and digitalized post-COVID-19 era measuring the effectiveness of RISs and understanding their impact on economic development becomes an increasingly complex task (Song et al. 2022). The evaluation of regional innovation systems is essential for several reasons. It enables policymakers to identify the strengths and weaknesses of their respective regions in terms of innovation capabilities (Firsova et al. 2020). By understanding these factors, policymakers can design targeted strategies to strengthen areas that require improvement while leveraging existing strengths. This approach allows for better resource allocation and more efficient use of public funds to support innovation initiatives (Costa 2021). In addition, evaluating regional innovation systems provides insights into how different components interact within a specific region. Innovation is not an isolated phenomenon but rather a result of various interconnected factors such as research institutions, universities, businesses, government policies, infrastructure, networks, and human capital (Papanastassiou et al. 2020). By assessing these interdependencies comprehensively, policymakers can gain a better understanding of the dynamics within their regions’ innovation ecosystems. Furthermore, evaluating regional innovation systems helps benchmark performance against other regions or countries globally (Zemtsov and Kotsemir 2019).

The Global Innovation Index (GII) ratings provide an internationally recognized framework for comparing the innovative capacity and performance across different economies. The GII is an interactive instrument that provides a valuable framework for evaluating regional innovation systems, enabling policymakers, researchers, and businesses to identify strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement with a high significance in assessing innovation systems (Kowalska et al. 2018; Dempere et al. 2023; Marti and Puertas 2023). The model of innovation systems presented in the GII offers a holistic approach that considers the multifaceted nature of innovation (Li et al. 2023). By evaluating countries through a diverse set of indicators and dimensions, the GII model provides insights into the strengths, weaknesses, and policy areas that nations can address to enhance their innovation capabilities and drive sustainable economic growth (Mohamed et al. 2022). Thence, the model is particularly relevant in understanding the broader context of innovation, extending beyond research laboratories to encompass economic and social aspects (Piqué et al. 2020). This is due to the fact that it highlights the linkages between science, technology, industry, and policy, showcasing any given nation’s innovation skills. Moreover, the GII model underscores the need for adaptability and agility in response to evolving global challenges and opportunities. This is particularly relevant for understanding the broader context of innovation, extending beyond research laboratories to encompass economic and social aspects. It highlights the linkages between science, technology, industry, and policy, showcasing the intricate web that underpins a nation’s innovation prowess. The GII model also underscores the need for adaptability and agility in response to evolving global challenges and opportunities (Ben Hassen 2022).

2. Improving the System of Indicators for Assessing the Effectiveness of Modern Regional Innovation Systems

In general terms, the features of the innovation strategies of the countries that affect the indicators for evaluating the effectiveness of their national and regional systems differ in many ways (Wang and Wang 2020; Hintringer et al. 2021; Bruneckienė et al. 2023; or Bobek et al. 2023). Analyzing the effectiveness of RISs in different countries sheds light on the intricate dynamics that influence innovation outcomes and regional competitiveness (Tambosi et al. 2020). The United States, recognized for its longstanding emphasis on innovation, boasts a highly developed RIS characterized by strong linkages between universities, research institutions, and industry. Japan, known for its strong industrial base, emphasizes collaboration between corporations, research institutes, and the government. China’s rapid ascent as an innovation powerhouse is marked by its government-driven approach, focusing on large-scale investment in R&D and strategic industries. The Czech Republic, with its small size and open economy, places importance on collaboration between universities, research centers, and the private sector. Russia, with its rich scientific heritage, confronts the task of transforming its legacy R&D institutions into dynamic innovation hubs. In addition, a comparison of a small economy like the Czech Republic with larger countries like the United States or Japan was conducted due to the fact that it illuminates the role of scale, government support, collaboration dynamics, and talent retention in shaping innovation ecosystems. While small economies may have resource constraints, they can capitalize on proximity, agility, and targeted specialization to foster innovation in specific domains. Such comparisons underscore the importance of tailoring innovation strategies to the unique context of each economy, regardless of its size. In the United States, innovative development has long been a “national idea”, and the strategy of increasing innovation covers all stages of the innovation life cycle, consistently including basic research, applied research, development, and innovation (Tolstykh et al. 2020; Yang and Gu 2021). An important role is played by educational organizations that create a significant number of start-ups with high innovative potential. The main actors of innovation activity in the U.S. are universities, a significant part of which rank high in the world rankings (De Wit 2019; Ebersberger and Kuckertz 2021). Other subjects of the U.S. innovation system are national laboratories and large government institutions that develop certain areas of applied science. In addition, U.S. enterprises influence the direction of scientific research and the educational process, and the state acts as a venture investor and public controller (Birkle et al. 2020; Novikov 2020). The U.S. innovation system implements the North American model, in which science, business, the state apparatus, civil society, and consumers form a kind of “quintuple spiral”, or a network structure of interaction (Pan and Guo 2022). An aspect of the country’s approach to innovation is the promotion of innovative endeavors within the private sector, even in the face of potential tactical and strategic setbacks or failure (Petrovsky et al. 2018; Dzigbede et al. 2020). In the various states of the U.S., at the initiative of the administration, scientific and technological clusters are being created, forming a sort of regional innovation system. The initial capital is allocated from the budget, and further funding is provided at the expense of private investors (Wang and Wang 2019; Firsova et al. 2020; Graf and Menter 2021). Alongside small enterprises, public–private collaborations are emerging as a fundamental component in shaping the U.S. innovation strategy. Consequently, indicators that gauge the establishment of conducive conditions for fostering long-term relationships between the government and the private sector are incorporated into the evaluation of regional innovation systems’ effectiveness (Vecchi et al. 2020; Hagan 2020; Baxter and Casady 2020). On the other hand, in Japan, a strategy for scientific, technological, and innovative development is being developed by the Council for Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (Tajeddini et al. 2020; Kuzior et al. 2022). The “soft” reform of the national innovation system began with the public sector and then shifted to universities and the business sector. The priorities of the innovation strategy are nanoelectronics and nanomaterials, renewable energy and energy saving, information and communication technologies, biotechnologies, new drugs and regenerative medicine technologies, intelligent robotics, the Internet of Things (IoT), etc. (Klavdienko 2017; Miyashita et al. 2020; Fukuda 2020). Along with the centralization of R&D management in the public sector, the principles for evaluating state research organizations and scientists were developed and implemented, allowing the distribution of financial resources (salaries, loans, etc.) based on the results of their work. Public sector research institutes and laboratories have greater autonomy in the management of internal resources while maintaining public funding (Cinar et al. 2022). The proportion of state involvement in innovation development is relatively small, with the majority of budget funds (approximately 95%) being allocated through the public sector to national universities and research institutions (Klavdienko 2017; Borsi 2021). However, the government wields indirect tools to regulate the R&D domain, such as tax incentives, preferential lending, and credit guarantees for small and medium-sized enterprises engaged in research and development activities (Holroyd 2022; Park and Kim 2022; Chang et al. 2022). It becomes evident that science and education play a significant and essential role in Japan’s National Innovation System. In a country with a population of 125.3 million people, there are 604 private, 86 national, and 89 public universities located mostly in large cities that distribute students among themselves by category: national universities that focus on training the personnel for state institutions and organizations, public universities who prepare staff for the municipalities or prefectures, and the private universities that provide cadres for the market (Fukui 2021; Ikegaya and Debbage 2023). However, Japan faces an issue concerning the collaboration between educational institutions and industrial enterprises in the domain of research and development (R&D). This challenge stems from the substantial bureaucratic nature of decision-making and the limited interaction between these organizations. The educational establishments possess considerable R&D potential, but they exhibit little inclination toward embracing the outcomes of university research, deeming them incomplete and unsuitable for practical implementation (Ellitan 2020). Moreover, the lack of incentives for fostering innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises has resulted in a considerable portion of the Japanese population favoring careers in civil service or major corporations. Consequently, this imbalance in the economy has led to a decline in labor productivity. However, Japan continues to focus on technology transfer, and this requires greater activation of flexible indirect methods of economic regulation in order to maintain innovative potential in the regions (Bardhan 2020). In China, the development of innovation can be divided into fundamental, initial, and catch-up stages, which led to the following positions:

The introduction of a large number of foreign technologies and domestic developments with higher growth rates compared to their implementation (Guo and Zheng 2019);
Absorption of basic foreign technologies, attracting foreign scientific and technological talents, encouraging the use of international resources, and improving the policy of attracting foreign investment (You and Xiao 2022);
Use of various financial means to encourage technological innovation in enterprises (Fang 2022).

China has also significantly increased spending on science and technology, developed a public procurement system, provided financial support to the venture capital market and the development of start-ups, and implemented an effective tax policy in terms of supporting research institutes and other innovation-oriented enterprises (Jonek-Kowalska and Wolniak 2021; Zhou and Wang 2023). At the same time, China faces constraints on crucial technologies imposed by other nations, and there is also a dearth of incentives to drive corporate innovations and foster the growth of scientific and technical talent. These circumstances justify incorporating these factors into the categories of indicators used to evaluate the effectiveness of regional innovation systems (Xu et al. 2023). When it comes to the Czech Republic, the innovative potential of Czech technology companies has been noted as promising in the recent years (Steruska et al. 2019; Vaníčková and Szczepańska-Woszczyna 2020), having adopted the basic principles established by the governing bodies in the EU in the field of technological development and innovation. In 2020, the Czech Republic saw twenty-one of its companies in the Fast 50 CE ranking of the fastest growing companies in Central and Eastern Europe (Hung 2022). The highest position belongs to the DoDo logistics service, which grew by 8427% in 2020 and managed to take the second place in the ranking (420ON.CZ 2023). In the second category of the Rising Stars rating, where young companies that have just entered the market are evaluated, Czech companies also became leaders. Of the twenty-five positions, ten were occupied by Czech startups, and seven of them were in the Top-10 (Vávrová 2022). A striking example is the platform for promising traders, FTMO, which provides them with financial capital. Thus, according to this ranking, the Czech Republic is a leader in the field of technological innovation, not only in Central Europe (Kohnová et al. 2019). However, the country still occupies a weak position in the development of hardware infrastructure. Despite the presence of global multinational companies, the Czech Republic is still lagging behind its competitors in this matter (Rehak et al. 2020). This situation is primarily attributed to the prevalence of risk-averse investors in the Czech investment market and the lack of a network comprising business angels and FFF (friends, family, and fools) category investors who would be willing to fund more daring and high-risk projects (Michiels et al. 2021). Therefore, it is easier for companies to develop software and then look for investors than to first raise capital and only then go into hardware production (420ON.CZ 2023). However, despite this fact, the Czech Republic remains among the countries with a relatively low number of young technology enterprises per capita, mainly because of the limited presence of proactive investors. Consequently, to evaluate the performance of regional innovation systems in the Czech Republic, it is essential to incorporate indicators such as the count of young innovators and the proportion of private investment in innovation. When it comes to Russia, the recent innovative activity in the Russian regions also underwent significant changes. In 2020, it was affected by the coronavirus pandemic, suspending the activities of most enterprises and forcing them to look for new ways to solve production problems, ensure business processes, and use more modern technologies (Zemtsov 2020; Romanova and Ponomareva 2021; Aldieri et al. 2021). However, bureaucratic hurdles and a history of centralized planning pose barriers to the agility needed for an effective RIS (Gurkov et al. 2017). In Russia, innovation is commonly linked to the introduction of novel products and services into the market. Notably, during the last three years, approximately 68.4% of innovative organizations have successfully undertaken the development of product innovations (Federal State Statistics Service 2023). As a rule, innovations are introduced in high-tech and medium-tech industries (production of aircraft and spacecraft, medical equipment, and vehicles); however, the level of novelty in Russia is much lower than in European countries and is most often focused on products that are already known on the market, but new to organizations. The share of innovative products, fundamentally new for the global market, is only 0.2%, and new products for the sales market of organizations—0.9% (Federal State Statistics Service 2023). However, in 2022, due to the war in Ukraine, the introduction of economic sanctions and the ban on the imports led to the need to intensify innovation. Meanwhile, it has become crucial to reevaluate the metrics employed for assessing the efficacy of regional innovation systems, wherein elements like the systematic advancement of innovation and the complete lifecycle of innovative products, from their inception to practical implementation in diverse domains, have gained prominence (Panibratov 2021; Zenchenko et al. 2022; Allam et al. 2022). When looking at the case of Russia, it becomes obvious that the indicators used to evaluate the effectiveness of Regional Innovation Systems (RISs) should encompass the speed of commercializing R&D outcomes and advancements in the information technology (IT) sector, with the aim of swiftly introducing new products and services to global markets (Innovative Development of Russia 2021).

References

Etim, Ernest, and Olawande Daramola. 2020. The informal sector and economic growth of South Africa and Nigeria: A comparative systematic review. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 6: 134.
Ma, Dan, and Qing Zhu. 2022. Innovation in emerging economies: Research on the digital economy driving high-quality green development. Journal of Business Research 145: 801–13.
Kaftan, Vitaly, Wadim Kandalov, Igor Molodtsov, Anna Sherstobitova, and Wadim Strielkowski. 2023. Socio-Economic Stability and Sustainable Development in the Post-COVID Era: Lessons for the Business and Economic Leaders. Sustainability 15: 2876.
Isaksen, Arne, Michaela Trippl, and Heike Mayer. 2022. Regional innovation systems in an era of grand societal challenges: Reorientation versus transformation. European Planning Studies 30: 2125–38.
Volchik, Vyacheslav, Elena Maslyukova, and Wadim Strielkowski. 2023. Perception of Scientific and Social Values in the Sustainable Development of National Innovation Systems. Social Sciences 12: 215.
Kolomytseva, Olena, and Anna Pavlovska. 2020. The role of universities in the national innovation system. Baltic Journal of Economic Studies 6: 51–58.
Chung, Sunyang. 2002. Building a national innovation system through regional innovation systems. Technovation 22: 485–91.
Satalkina, Liliya, and Gerald Steiner. 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: 2764.
Park, HyunJee, and Sang Ok Choi. 2019. Digital innovation adoption and its economic impact focused on path analysis at national level. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 5: 56.
Coutinho, Evelina Maria Oliveira, and Manuel Au-Yong-Oliveira. 2023. Factors Influencing Innovation Performance in Portugal: A Cross-Country Comparative Analysis Based on the Global Innovation Index and on the European Innovation Scoreboard. Sustainability 15: 10446.
Song, Malin, Chenbin Zheng, and Jiangquan Wang. 2022. The role of digital economy in China’s sustainable development in a post-pandemic environment. Journal of Enterprise Information Management 35: 58–77.
Firsova, Anna A., Elena L. Makarova, and Ryasimya R. Tugusheva. 2020. Institutional management elaboration through cognitive modeling of the balanced sustainable development of regional innovation systems. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 6: 32.
Costa, Joana. 2021. Carrots or sticks: Which policies matter the most in sustainable resource management? Resources 10: 12.
Papanastassiou, Marina, Robert Pearce, and Antonello Zanfei. 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: 623–64.
Zemtsov, Stepan, and Maxim Kotsemir. 2019. An assessment of regional innovation system efficiency in Russia: The application of the DEA approach. Scientometrics 120: 375–404.
Kowalska, Anna, Jaroslav Kovarnik, Eva Hamplova, and Pavel Prazak. 2018. The Selected Topics for Comparison in Visegrad Four Countries. Economies 6: 50.
Dempere, Juan, Muhammad Qamar, Hesham Allam, and Sabir Malik. 2023. The Impact of Innovation on Economic Growth, Foreign Direct Investment, and Self-Employment: A Global Perspective. Economies 11: 182.
Marti, Luisa, and Rosa Puertas. 2023. Analysis of European competitiveness based on its innovative capacity and digitalization level. Technology in Society 72: 102206.
Li, Xing, Hong-Juan Zhang, and De-Yan Yang. 2023. National innovation systems and the achievement of sustainable development goals: Effect of knowledge-based dynamic capability. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 8: 100310.
Mohamed, Btool H., Mustafa Disli, Mohammed bin Saleh Al-Sada, and Muammer Koç. 2022. Investigation on Human Development Needs, Challenges, and Drivers for Transition to Sustainable Development: The Case of Qatar. Sustainability 14: 3705.
Piqué, Josep M., Jasmina Berbegal-Mirabent, and Henry Etzkowitz. 2020. The role of universities in shaping the evolution of Silicon Valley’s ecosystem of innovation. Triple Helix 7: 277–321.
Ben Hassen, Tarek. 2022. A Transformative State in the Wake of COVID-19: What Is Needed to Enable Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Education in Qatar? Sustainability 14: 7953.
Wang, Huiping, and Meixia Wang. 2020. Effects of technological innovation on energy efficiency in China: Evidence from dynamic panel of 284 cities. Science of the Total Environment 709: 136172.
Hintringer, Tina Maria, Vito Bobek, Franko Milost, and Tatjana Horvat. 2021. Innovation as a determinant of growth in outperforming emerging markets: An analysis of South Korea. Sustainability 13: 10241.
Bruneckienė, Jurgita, Ineta Zykienė, and Ieva Mičiulienė. 2023. Rethinking National Competitiveness for Europe 2050: The Case of EU Countries. Sustainability 15: 10697.
Bobek, Vito, Vladislav Streltsov, and Tatjana Horvat. 2023. Directions for the Sustainability of Innovative Clustering in a Country. Sustainability 15: 3576.
Tambosi, Silvana Silva Vieira, Giancarlo Gomes, and Mohamed Amal. 2020. Organisational learning capability and innovation: Study on companies located in regional cluster. International Journal of Innovation Management 24: 205005.
Tolstykh, Tatyana, Nadezhda Shmeleva, and Leyla Gamidullaeva. 2020. Evaluation of circular and integration potentials of innovation ecosystems for industrial sustainability. Sustainability 12: 4574.
Yang, Fengwei, and Sai Gu. 2021. Industry 4.0, a revolution that requires technology and national strategies. Complex & Intelligent Systems 7: 1311–25.
De Wit, Hans. 2019. Internationalization in higher education, a critical review. SFU Educational Review 12: 9–17.
Ebersberger, Bernd, and Andreas Kuckertz. 2021. Hop to it! The impact of organization type on innovation response time to the COVID-19 crisis. Journal of Business Research 124: 126–35.
Birkle, Caroline, David A. Pendlebury, Joshua Schnell, and Jonathan Adams. 2020. Web of Science as a data source for research on scientific and scholarly activity. Quantitative Science Studies 1: 363–76.
Novikov, Sergey. 2020. Data science and big data technologies role in the digital economy. TEM Journal 9: 756–62.
Pan, Jiaofeng, and Jianxin Guo. 2022. Innovative collaboration and acceleration: An integrated framework based on knowledge transfer and triple helix. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 13: 3223–47.
Petrovsky, Aleksander, Sergey Pronichkin, Mikhail Sternin, and Gennady Shepelev. 2018. National innovation system of the USA: Features, peculiarities, ways of development. Scientific Statements 2: 343–52.
Dzigbede, Komla D., Gehl Sarah Beth, and Willoughby Katherine. 2020. Disaster resiliency of US local governments: Insights to strengthen local response and recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. Public Administration Review 80: 634–43.
Wang, Qiang, and Shasha Wang. 2019. Decoupling economic growth from carbon emissions growth in the United States: The role of research and development. Journal of Cleaner Production 234: 702–13.
Graf, Holger, and Matthias Menter. 2021. Public research and the quality of inventions: The role and impact of entrepreneurial universities and regional network embeddedness. Small Business Economics 2021: 1–18.
Vecchi, Veronica, Niccolò Cusumano, and Eric J. Boyer. 2020. Medical supply acquisition in Italy and the United States in the era of COVID-19: The case for strategic procurement and public–private partnerships. The American Review of Public Administration 50: 642–49.
Hagan, Margaret. 2020. Legal design as a thing: A theory of change and a set of methods to craft a human-centered legal system. Design Issues 36: 3–15.
Baxter, David, and Carter B. Casady. 2020. Proactive and strategic healthcare public-private partnerships (PPPs) in the coronavirus (COVID-19) epoch. Sustainability 12: 5097.
Tajeddini, Kayhan, Emma Martin, and Levent Altinay. 2020. The importance of human-related factors on service innovation and performance. International Journal of Hospitality Management 85: 102431.
Kuzior, Aleksandra, Iryna Pidorycheva, Viacheslav Liashenko, Hanna Shevtsova, and Nataliia Shvets. 2022. Assessment of National Innovation Ecosystems of the EU Countries and Ukraine in the Interests of Their Sustainable Development. Sustainability 14: 8487.
Klavdienko, Victor. 2017. Japan′s National Innovation System: Soft Adaptation to New Challenges. Innovations 7: 82–89.
Miyashita, Shuto, Shogo Katoh, Tomohiro Anzai, and Shintaro Sengoku. 2020. Intellectual Property Management in Publicly Funded R&D Program and Projects: Optimizing Principal–Agent Relationship through Transdisciplinary Approach. Sustainability 12: 9923.
Fukuda, Kayano. 2020. Science, technology and innovation ecosystem transformation toward society 5.0. International Journal of Production Economics 220: 107460.
Cinar, Emre, Christopher Simms, Paul Trott, and Mehmet Akif Demircioglu. 2022. Public Sector Innovation in Context: A Comparative Study of Innovation Types. Public Management Review, latest article.
Borsi, Balázs. 2021. The Balanced State of Application-oriented Public Research and Technology Organisations. Science and Public Policy 48: 612–29.
Holroyd, Carin. 2022. Technological innovation and building a ‘super smart’society: Japan’s vision of society 5.0. Journal of Asian Public Policy 15: 18–31.
Park, Taeyoung, and Jun Youn Kim. 2022. An exploratory study on innovation policy in eight Asian countries. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management 13: 273–303.
Chang, Dian-Fu, Wen-Ching Chou, and Tien-Li Chen. 2022. Comparing Gender Diversity in the Process of Higher-Education Expansion in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and the UK for SDG 5. Sustainability 14: 10929.
Fukui, Fumitake. 2021. Do government appropriations and tax policies impact donations to public research universities in Japan and the USA? Higher Education 81: 325–44.
Ikegaya, Makoto, and Keith Debbage. 2023. The geography of the Super Creative Class in the greater Tokyo area: Place of work and place of residence. City, Culture and Society 33: 100516.
Ellitan, Lena. 2020. Competing in the era of industrial revolution 4.0 and society 5.0. Jurnal Maksipreneur: Manajemen, Koperasi, dan Entrepreneurship 10: 1–12.
Bardhan, Pranab. 2020. The Chinese governance system: Its strengths and weaknesses in a comparative development perspective. China Economic Review 61: 101430.
Guo, Yanting, and Gang Zheng. 2019. How do firms upgrade capabilities for systemic catch-up in the open innovation context? A multiple-case study of three leading home appliance companies in China. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 144: 36–48.
You, Jialu, and Hang Xiao. 2022. Can FDI facilitate green total factor productivity in China? Evidence from regional diversity. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 29: 49309–21.
Fang, Donang. 2022. China’s Innovation Policy: Stages of formation. Creative Economy 16: 331–44.
Jonek-Kowalska, Izabela, and Radosław Wolniak. 2021. The influence of local economic conditions on start-ups and local open innovation system. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 7: 110.
Zhou, Junbi, and Mingyue Wang. 2023. The role of government-industry-academia partnership in business incubation: Evidence from new R&D institutions in China. Technology in Society 72: 102194.
Xu, Yibin, Zhibin Chen, and Rui Fan. 2023. Highly skilled foreign labor introduction policies and corporate innovation: Evidence from a natural experiment in China. Economic Analysis and Policy 77: 137–56.
Steruska, Jana, Nikola Simkova, and Tomas Pitner. 2019. Do science and technology parks improve technology transfer? Technology in Society 59: 101127.
Vaníčková, Radka, and Katarzyna Szczepańska-Woszczyna. 2020. Innovation of business and marketing plan of growth strategy and competitive advantage in exhibition industry. Polish Journal of Management Studies 21: 425–45.
Hung, Ngo Thai. 2022. Spillover effects between stock prices and exchange rates for the central and eastern European countries. Global Business Review 23: 259–86.
420ON.CZ. 2023. Technology and Innovation: What Hinds Startups to Grow in the Czech Republic. Available online: https://420on.cz/immigration/business/60132-tehnologii-i-innovatsii-chto-meshaet-rasti-startapam-v-chehii (accessed on 15 July 2023).
Vávrová, Jitka. 2022. Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Corporate Social Responsibility in the Hotel Industry–Case of the Czech Republic. Journal of Tourism and Services 13: 213–29.
Kohnová, Lucia, Ján Papula, and Nikola Salajová. 2019. Internal factors supporting business and technological transformation in the context of Industry 4.0. Business: Theory and Practice 20: 137–45.
Rehak, David, Martin Hromada, and Tomas Lovecek. 2020. Personnel threats in the electric power critical infrastructure sector and their effect on dependent sectors: Overview in the Czech Republic. Safety Science 127: 104698.
Michiels, Anneleen, Jelle Schepers, Pieter Vandekerkhof, and Alessandro Cirillo. 2021. Leasing as an Alternative Form of Financing within Family Businesses: The Important Advisory Role of the Accountant. Sustainability 13: 6978.
Zemtsov, Stepan. 2020. New technologies, potential unemployment and ‘nescience economy’during and after the 2020 economic crisis. Regional Science Policy & Practice 12: 723–43.
Romanova, Olga, and Alena Ponomareva. 2021. Structural factor of reducing interterritorial inequality in the post-Covid period. E3S Web of Conferences 301: 02001.
Aldieri, Luigi, Maxim Kotsemir, and Concetto Paolo Vinci. 2021. Environmental innovations and productivity: Empirical evidence from Russian regions. Resources Policy 74: 101444.
Gurkov, Igor, Arcady Goldberg, and Zokirzhon Saidov. 2017. Strategic agility and persistence: HEM’s entry into the Russian market of expendable materials for clinical laboratories. Global Business and Organizational Excellence 36: 12–19.
Federal State Statistics Service. 2023. Science and Innovations Statistics. Available online: https://rosstat.gov.ru/statistics/science# (accessed on 28 July 2023).
Panibratov, Andrey. 2021. Sanctions, cooperation, and innovation: Insights into Russian economy and implications for Russian firms. BRICS Journal of Economics 2: 4–26.
Zenchenko, Svetlana, Wadim Strielkowski, Luboš Smutka, Tomáš Vacek, Yana Radyukova, and Vladislav Sutyagin. 2022. Monetization of the Economies as a Priority of the New Monetary Policy in the Face of Economic Sanctions. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 15: 140.
Allam, Zaheer, Simon Elias Bibri, and Samantha A. Sharpe. 2022. The Rising Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic and the Russia–Ukraine War: Energy Transition, Climate Justice, Global Inequality, and Supply Chain Disruption. Resources 11: 99.
Innovative Development of Russia. 2021. Support for Innovative SMEs in Japan. Available online: https://rusinno.ru/article/424868/ (accessed on 25 July 2023).