Study of Theoretical and Methodological Features of Macroeconomic Assessment of the Consequences of Technological Changes and Their Effectiveness
Tóm tắt
Many Asian economies, especially those in Southeast Asia, have been recognized as the most competitive and dynamic in the world in recent decades. For example, the newly industrialized NIS countries—South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan—are distinguished by sustainable economic growth due to different approaches to modernization and scientific and technological progress, but within the framework of the “catching-up development” paradigm. This concept is quite often applied to the Russian economy. Therefore, today the topic of identifying the advantages and disadvantages of the catch-up development strategy in terms of their usefulness for explaining the trajectories of the development of science and innovations is acquiring special relevance. The purpose of this article is to study the theoretical and methodological features of the macroeconomic assessment of the consequences of technological changes and their effectiveness in European countries in the period 2011–2018, and on this basis to identify the advantages and disadvantages of two models: “Shifts in technological frontiers” and “catch-up development,” which contribute to the convergence of national innovation systems, or, conversely, their divergence. To this end, an attempt was made to apply the methodology of the global productivity index as an effective indicator for assessing the effectiveness of innovation dynamics in European countries. One of the results of our study is to identify credible evidence that innovation does not necessarily imply technological improvement. The scientific novelty of our research lies in the improved understanding of how innovative systems function over time. The practical application of the results of this study could be associated with the study of the dynamics of interactions within the integration association (Eurasian Economic Union), as well as at the internal Russian regional level.
Tài liệu tham khảo
F. Rolf and K. Anders, “Sten Malmquist in Memoriam,” J. Prod. Anal. 23 (2), 141–142 (2005).
V. N. Borisov and O. V. Pochukaeva, “Developing import substitution as a result of the growth of competitiveness of investment equipment,” Razvit. Territ., No. 2 (24), 10–18 (2021).
B. D. Matrizaev, “Study of the features of the procyclical dynamics of investments in scientific, technological and innovative development of the economy on the example of countries with a “catching up” model,” Vopr. Innovatsionoi Ekon. 9 (3), 693–708 (2019).
H. Leibenstein, “X-efficiency: from concept to theory,” Challenge 22 (4), 13–22 (1979).
J. Fagerberg, “A technology gap approach to why growth rates differ,” Res. Policy. 16, 87–94 (1987).
J. Furman and R. Hayes, “Catching up or standing still? National innovative productivity among ‘follower’ countries, 1978–1999,” Res. Pol., 33, 1329–1354 (2004).
A. Bergek, M. Hekkert, S. Jacobsson, J. Markard, B. Sandén, and B. Truffer, “Technological innovation systems in contexts: conceptualizing contextual structures and interaction dynamics,” Environ. Innovation Soc. Transitions 16, 51–64 (2015).
D. Archibugi and A. Filippetti, “Is the economic crisis impairing convergence in innovation performance across Europe?,” J. Common. Mark. Stud. 49, 1153–1182 (2011).
E. M. Disoska, D. Tevdovski, K. Toshevska-Trpchevska, and V. Stojkoski, “Evidence of innovation performance in the period of economic recovery in Europe,” Innovation 33 (3), 280–295 (2018).
K. Enflo and P. Hjertstrand, “Relative sources of european regional productivity convergence: a bootstrap frontier approach,” Reg. Stud. 43, 643–659 (2009).
European innovation scoreboard. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/innovation/facts- figures/scoreboards_en. 2019.
C. Edquist, J. M. Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. Barbero, and J. L. Zofio, “On the meaning of innovation performance: is the synthetic indicator of the innovation union scoreboard flawed?,” Res. Eval. 27 (3), 196–211 (2018).
“Actual problems of Europe. Europe and Russia,” Innovatsion. Razvit. Mod. Ekon., No. 1, 254 (2018).
V. N. Borisov, et al., Modernization of Industry and Development of High-Tech Production in the Context of “Green Growth”, Ed. by B.N. Porfir’eva (Nauchnyi Konsul’tant, Moscow, 2017) [in Russian].
B. D. Matrizaev, “Study of the hypothetical foundations of the strategy of technological modernization and increase of innovative potential in countries with rapidly growing economies,” Ekon.: Teor. Prakt., No. 1 (53), 15–21 (2019).
E. Akulova, Innovative Solutions on the Way to Effective Development of the Russian Economy (LAP Lambert Academic, Moscow, 2014) [in Russian].
V. N. Borisov, et al., “development of the Russian economy in the aspect of green growth on the example of industrialized regions,” in Transactions of the Institute of Economic Forecasting of the Russian Academy of Sciences (MAKS Press, Moscow, 2020), pp. 348–364.
V. L. Baburin, Innovation Cycles in the Russian Economy (Russian State University for the Humanities, Moscow, 2014).
Actual Problems of Europe. Issue No. 1 (2013). Europe and Russia. Innovative Development and Modernization of Economies. Monograph (Institute of Scientific Information on Social Sciences, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 2016) [in Russian].
A. A. Auzan, Innovative Development of Russian Economy. International Cooperation (Prospekt, Moscow, 2016) [in Russian].
W. W. Cooper, L. M. Seiford, and K. Tone, Data Envelopment Analysis. A Comprehensive Text with Models, Applications, References and DEA-Solver Software. 2nd Edition (Springer-Verlag, New York, 2006).
A. Charnes, W. W. Cooper, and E. Rhodes, “Measuring the efficiency of decision making units,” Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2 (6), 429–444 (1978).
R. W. Shephard, Cost and Production Functions (Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1953).