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

Abstract

In the post-pandemic social and economic conditions, the proper assessment of the effectiveness of regional innovation systems (RISs) becomes a key endeavor. In our paper, we highlight the necessity to enhance the set of indicators used to evaluate the performance of regional innovation systems in countries with varying innovation capabilities. Specifically, we concentrate on examining case studies from the United States, Japan, China, and the Czech Republic, comparing their experiences with the current situation to innovations and innovation systems in Russia and drawing lessons for this country. Utilizing the Global Innovation Index (GII) rankings, we conduct an analysis of the characteristics of innovative progress and propose specific groups of indicators that can enhance the effectiveness of evaluating the innovative advancement of different regions. Moreover, we determine the need for uniqueness, flexibility, and adaptability of these based on the state’s strategic guidelines in the field of innovation and the innovative potential of the territory as well as the factors of external and internal influence. In addition, we conduct and present the results of the bibliometric network analysis of the research publications retrieved from the Web of Science (WoS) database using VOSViewer software and covering the role of regional innovation systems (RISs) in sha** up the national innovation systems (NISs) both in general terms and specifically applied to the case of Russia. Our results might be relevant for the stakeholders and policymakers who are engaged in promoting innovation, regional development, and sustainable economic growth, as well as for the academics working on the topics of innovation and economic development.

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). Our comprehensive analysis presented in this study will help to allow regions to assess where they stand in relation to their peers in terms of various indicators such as research and development (R&D) expenditure, patent applications, knowledge creation outputs, and technology transfer activities, among others. Furthermore, evaluating regional innovation systems enables policymakers to monitor progress over time by establishing baselines and setting targets for future growth. It helps identify trends or changes that may affect the region’s competitiveness in the long run so that appropriate measures can be taken proactively. Finally, understanding the importance of evaluating regional innovation systems also emphasizes inclusivity and equity in economic development. By examining the innovation capabilities of different regions, policymakers can identify potential disparities and address them through targeted policies and initiatives. This ensures that the benefits of innovation-driven economic growth are shared more evenly, reducing regional inequalities.

The main value-added element of this study lies in emphasizing the crucial need to enhance the set of indicators for evaluating regional innovation systems (RISs) in diverse innovation-capable countries. Focusing on case studies from the United States, Japan, China, and the Czech Republic, as well as the lessons they can provide for Russia, we compare their experiences, drawing valuable lessons. Leveraging the Global Innovation Index (GII) rankings, we underscore the importance of uniqueness, flexibility, and adaptability aligned with strategic guidelines, innovation potential, and internal/external influences. Additionally, our study conducts bibliometric network analysis through the VOSViewer software, exploring the role of RISs in sha** national innovation systems (NISs), particularly concerning Russia. The following Research Questions (RQs) are explicitly introduced as the key questions for this study:

RQ1: Should countries with varying innovation capabilities apply enhanced or altered sets of indicators employed for evaluating the performance of their regional innovation systems?

RQ2: What differences between regional and national innovation systems have to be considered in the case of countries described above?

RQ3: What lessons can be learned from the innovation activity of the countries at the top of the GII index by the countries marked by bureaucratic hurdles and the legacy of central planning such as Russia?

This paper is structured as follows: Section 2 offers a comprehensive literature review on papers involving innovation strategies and describes case studies from the United States, Japan, China, and the Czech Republic on one hand and Russia on the other hand. Section 3 discusses tracking innovation and highlights and the role of the Global Innovation Index. Section 4 assesses the innovations and innovative activity in Russia and compares them to the case studies presented in the previous sections. Section 5 reports the results of the network analysis of regional and national innovation systems research based on the bibliometric study. Finally, Section 6 concludes by providing the overall outcomes, policy implications, and pathways for further research.

2. Literature Review

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). For the purposes of this study, we selected four countries (United States, Japan, China, and the Czech Republic) for further comparison and to draw lessons for Russia. The selection was conducted based on their performance and ranking in the GII to ensure better representativeness. 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 sha** 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 sha** 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 ** innovative approaches to continuously update and refine these indicators, ensuring they remain relevant and responsive to changing economic, technological, and political conditions. The results of this study emphasize the significance of contextualizing the evaluation of regional innovation systems based on a country’s unique innovation potential, development strategies, and specific socio-economic circumstances. Thence, future research can focus upon the factors that influence the effectiveness of innovation systems in different countries and explore how tailored evaluation criteria can lead to more accurate assessments.
  There appears to be a connection between a country’s strategic goals in innovation development and the assessment of regional innovation systems. Further studies can investigate how aligning regional innovation objectives with national innovation priorities can foster better overall innovation performance.
  In addition, the lessons stemming for Russia would be to increase its technological and innovation sovereignty, which suggests the need for research on how nations can enhance their indigenous technological capabilities and reduce dependence on external technology and knowledge sources. Russia’s journey toward building an effective RIS involves capitalizing on its scientific legacy, overcoming bureaucratic hurdles, fostering cross-sectoral collaboration, and aligning education with industry needs. Lessons drawn from successful innovation models worldwide underscore the significance of agile decision-making, strategic policy reforms, and holistic integration of various stakeholders. As Russia continues to navigate its innovation landscape, the country has an opportunity to channel its scientific heritage into a dynamic and thriving ecosystem that drives sustainable economic growth.
  When it comes to the pathways for further research, conducting in-depth comparative studies of various countries’ innovation systems can provide valuable insights into best practices, challenges, and strategies for improving innovation performance. Researchers could explore additional countries with diverse innovation experiences to broaden the scope of analysis. Further research could also investigate the long-term impact of using specific indicators to assess regional innovation systems and how policymakers and stakeholders respond to the evaluation results to drive meaningful improvements in innovation policies and practices.
  It needs to be stressed that the objectives of regional and national innovation policies are multifaceted and geared toward fostering economic growth, competitiveness, and societal well-being through innovation-driven activities. These policies aim to create an environment that encourages research and development, knowledge creation, technology adoption, and the translation of ideas into marketable products and services. While these objectives remain consistent, the emphasis and strategies might evolve in response to potential de-globalization trends. Historically, innovation policies have been influenced by the advantages of global interconnectedness, including access to international markets, collaboration, and knowledge sharing. However, if de-globalization becomes more important, the objectives of innovation policies may shift to address new challenges and opportunities. Governments might need to recalibrate their policies to foster domestic innovation ecosystems, enhance self-reliance, and adapt to changing economic dynamics. A proactive approach that aligns innovation policies with emerging global realities will be crucial to ensuring sustained progress and resilience in an evolving landscape.
  Our findings can have implications for national and regional policymakers not just in Russia but also in other countries and territories in terms of identifying targeted interventions to strengthen their innovative ecosystems. Thus, further research could explore the actual policy implications of the research findings and evaluate their effectiveness in real-world settings.
  Overall, there appears to be a need for nuanced and context-specific approaches to evaluating regional innovation systems, considering the unique characteristics and challenges of each country. Further research in these areas can contribute to the development of more effective and tailored strategies to foster innovation-led economic growth and societal development.