Spatial differences in innovation potential of central European regions during post-transformation period

• Autorzy: Petr Hlaváček , Tomáš Siviček
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The article focuses on mapping the innovation potential of the regions in Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Poland having their own elected institutions, which may influence the development of innovation potential of the regions. The correlation analysis and calculation of the aggregate index were used for comparison of the regions. The research is based on the authors' own construction of the Innovation Potential Index which uses 6 indicators: a) GDP per capita in EUR, b) the share of inhabitants with university degree in population, c) the share of R&D involved persons per workforce, d) gross fixed capital formation (GFCF) by regions, e) the number of patents and utility models per regions. Better conditions for growing innovation potential can be seen in the metropolitan areas rather than in agricultural and old industrial regions. The main advantage of old industrial regions is that they can improve their innovative potential by transforming the economic potential, which is weak in the peripheral and agrarian regions. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

PL

Potencjał innowacyjny; Rozwój regionalny; Zróżnicowanie regionalne

EN

Innovation potential; Regional development; Regional diversity

• Czasopismo: Journal of International Studies
• Rocznik: 2017
• Tom: 10
• Numer: nr 2
• Strony: 61-73

Twórcy

autor

Petr Hlaváček

• Jan Evangelista Purkyně University in Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic

autor

Tomáš Siviček

• Jan Evangelista Purkyně University in Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic

Bibliografia

• Andersson, M., & Karlsson, Ch. (2004). Regional Innovation Systems in Small & Medium-Sized Regions. CESIS, Electronic Working Paper Series. Retrieved from https://static.sys.kth.se/itm/wp/ cesis/cesiswp10.pdf, referred on 14/02/2017.
• Asheim, B. R. T. (1996). Industrial districts as 'learning regions': a condition for prosperity. European planning studies, 4(4), 379-400.
• Asheim, B. T., Boschma, R., & Cooke, P. (2011). Constructing regional advantage: Platform policies based on related variety and differentiated knowledge bases. Regional studies, 45(7), 893-904.
• Barca, F. (2009). An Agendafor a Reformed Cohesion Policy:A Place-Based Approach to MeetingEuropean Union Challenges and Expectations. Independent Report, prepared at the request of the European Commissioner for Regional Policy, European Commission, Brussels.
• Barca, F., McCann, P., & Rodriguez-Pose, A. (2012). The case for regional development intervention: place-based versus place-neutral approaches. Journal of regional science, 52(1), 134-152.
• Blažek, J., Žížalová, P., Rumpel, P., Skokan, K., & Chládek, P. (2013). Emerging regional innovation stra tegies in Central Europe: institutions and regional leadership in generating strategic outcomes. European Urban and Regional Studies, 20(2), 275-294.
• Boschma, R. (2014). Constructing regional advantage and smart specialisation: comparison of two European policy concepts. Scienge Regionali, 1(1), 51-68.
• Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. (2009). 'Mode 3'and'Quadruple Helix': toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. Internationaljournal of technology management, 46(3-4), 201-234.
• Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. (2011). Open innovation diplomacy and a 21st century fractal research, education and innovation (FREIE) ecosystem: building on the quadruple and quintuple helix innovation concepts and the "mode 3" knowledge production system. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 2(3), 327.
• Coenen, L., Moodysson, J., & Martin, H. (2015). Path renewal in old industrial regions: Possibilities and limitations for regional innovation policy. Regional Studies, 49(5), 850-865.
• Cooke, P., Uranga, M. G., & Etxebarria, G. (1997). Regional innovation systems: Institutional and organisational dimensions. Research policy, 26(4-5), 475-491.
• Žížalová, P., & Csank, P. (2009). Jsou výzkum, vývoj a inovace klíčové procesy (nerovnoměrného) regionálního rozvoje. Geografie, 114(1), 21-36.
• Etzkowitz, H., & Carvalho de Mello, J. M. (2004). The rise of a triple helix culture: Innovation in Brazilian economic and social development. International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development, 2(3), 159-171.
• Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and "Mode 2" to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Research policy, 29(2), 109-123.
• Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1997) (eds), Universities in the Global Knowledge Economy: A Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations. London: Cassell Academic.
• European Commission (2014). Regional Innovation Scoreboard 2014. Retrieved from http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/regional-innovation-scoreboard-2014-pbNBBC14001. referred on 11/12/2016.
• European Commission (2015). Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/search?q=Innovation+Union+Scoreboard+2015+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b■ referred on 11/12/2016.
• Fedirko, O. (2014). Key Trends and Problems of Regional Innovation Systems' Development in Poland and Ukraine central. European Business Review, 3(3), 38-45.
• Hlaváček, P. (2013), Economic and Innovation Adaptability o f Regions in the Czech Republic. LiberecEconomic Forum 2013, Liberec, 194-203.
• Hlaváček, P., Žambochová, M., & Siviček, T. (2015). The influence of the institutions on entrepreneurship development: Public support and perception of entrepreneurship development in the Czech Republic. Amfiteatru Economic, 17(38), 408-421.
• Hoppe, M. L., & Winter, M. (2015, January). Measuring Innovation in Industry on a Trans-regional Comparison. In ISPIM Conference Proceedings (p. 1). The International Society for Professional Innovation Management (ISPIM), 1-16.
• Klímová, V., & Žítek, V. (2015). Innovation paradox in the Czech Republic: Economic theory and political reality. Politická ekonomie, 63(2), 147-166.
• Kozun-Cieslak, G. (2017). Two faces of regional innovativeness - the evidence from visegrad group states. In: 19th International Colloquium on Regional Sciences, 325-332.
• Nauwelaers, C., & Reid, A. (1995). Methodologies for the evaluation of regional innovation potential. Scientometrics, 34(3), 497-511.
• Nijkamp, P., Zwetsloot, F., & van der Wal, S. (2010). Innovation and growth potentials of European regions: A metamulticriteria analysis. European Planning Studies, 18(4), 595-611.
• OECD (2016). Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/sti/inno/ oslomanualg^iidelinesforcollectingandinterpretinginnovationdata3rdedition.ht m, referred on 12/12/2016.
• Oughton, C., Landabaso, M., & Morgan, K. (2002). The regional innovation paradox: innovation policy and industrial policy. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 27(1), 97-110.
• Pokorný, O. (2008). Analýza inovačního potenciálu kraj° u České republiky. Technologické Centrum Akad. Věd ČR.
• Ratajczak, W., & Weltrowska-Jęch,J. (2008). Knowledge Regions - The European Future. Modelling The European Future: Integrating The Old & The New, 4, 461-472.
• Muscio, A., Reid, A., & Rivera Leon, L. (2015). An empirical test of the regional innovation paradox: can smart specialisation overcome the paradox in Central ad Eastern Europe?. Journal of Economic Policy Reform, 18 (2), 153171.
• Reichert, S. (2006). The Rise of Knowledge Regions: Emerging Opportunities and Challengesfor Universities. European University Association. Retrieved from http://www.eua.be/uploads/media/The Rise of Knowledge Regions.pdf. referred on 15/12/2016.
• Riche, M. (2010). Regional Innovation Governance. RegionalFocus, 2, European Commission, Regional Policy, Brussels, Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/regional policy/sources/docgener/focus/2010 02 innovation governance.pdf referred on 11/12/2016.
• Rodionov, D. G., Guzikova, L. A., & Rudskaya, I. A. (2014). Innovation potential of regions as a factor of national economy competitiveness. Actual Problems of Economics, 158(8), 215-223.
• Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Di Cataldo, M. (2014). Quality of government and innovative performance in the regions of Europe. Journal of Economic Geography, 15(4), 673-706.
• Romer, P. M. (1994). The origins of endogenous growth. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(1), 3-22.
• Streimikiene, D. (2014). The Impact of Research and Development for Business Innovations in Lithuania. Amfiteatru Economic, 16(37), 965-979.
• Technological Agency of the Czech Republic (TACR) (2015). Projektmapovam inovarn kapaaty - INKA. Retrieved from https://www.tacr.cz/index.php /cz/novinky/586-projekt-mapovani-inovacni-kapacity-inka.htmL referred on 11/12/2016.
• Viturka, M., Žítek, V., Klímová, V., & Tonev, P. (2011). Application of microeconomic and macroeconomic approach to the evaluating disparities in the regional development. Ekonomicky ćasopis (Journalof Economics), 7(59), 655-668.
• UNDP (2016). Innovation for development. Retrieved from http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/ourwork/development-impact/innovation.htmk referred on 181/12/2016.
• Zumbusch, K., & Scherer, R. (2013). Mobilizing enterprises for regional innovation policies. how to assure an active involvement of located enterprises in regional development. Economics & Sociology, 6(1), 13-27.
• Zdražil,, P., & Applova, P. (2016). Growth disparities among regions of the Visegrad group countries: an evidence of their extent and nature. E+ M Ekonomie a Management, 19(2), 37-54.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.14254/2071-8330.2017/10-2/4