The Global Innovation Index analysis in Russia using the Structural equation model
https://doi.org/10.20914/2310-1202-2022-3-412-426
Abstract
The Global Innovation Index (GII) was developed to track innovation potential and efficiency in the country, by utilizing specified inputs and outputs parameters. However, take into account any structural links among elements affecting a country's achievement. We proposed in this study a structural equation model (SEM) based on the hypothesized innovation structure between seven indicators, representing inputs that contain institutions, human capital and research, infrastructure, market sophistication, and business sophistication. And outputs which are represented by knowledge and technology outputs, and creative outputs. By using the GII data from 2012 to 2021 in Russia, we discovered that knowledge and technology outputs, as well as infrastructure, have the largest direct and indirect influence on creative outputs and market sophistication, respectively. Also, we found a significant effect of institutions on market sophistication, and a great effect from infrastructure on institutions, and human capital and development. And while innovation is so important for economic growth, it is necessary to increase knowledge absorption to improve innovation performance. Also, for environmental considerations, such as ecological sustainability, as well as the indirect effect on Market sophistication)
About the Authors
K. B. Djebbouri
Voronezh State University of Engineering Technologies
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
graduate student, economic security and financial monitoring department, Revolution Av., 19 Voronezh, 394036, Russia
A. N. Boutouatou
Voronezh State University of Engineering Technologies
graduate student, economic security and financial monitoring department, Revolution Av., 19 Voronezh, 394036, Russia
A. I. Khorev
Voronezh State University of Engineering Technologies
Dr. Sci. (Econ.), professor, economic security and financial monitoring department, Revolution Av., 19 Voronezh, 394036, Russia
M. N. Ivliyev
Voronezh State University of Engineering Technologies
Cand. Sci. (Engin.), associate professor, economic security and financial monitoring department, Revolution Av., 19 Voronezh, 394036, Russia
References
1. Veselica R. Linking innovation and national competitiveness, in 37th International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development. Socio-Economic Problems of Sustainable Development. 2019. pp. 279–287.
2. Carayannis E.G., Grigoroudis E. Using multiobjective mathematical programming to link national competitiveness, productivity, and innovation. Annals of Operations Research. 2016. vol. 247. no. 2. pp. 635–655. doi: 10.1007/s10479–015–1873 x
3. Sekuloska J.D. Innovation Oriented FDI as a Way of Improving the National Competitiveness. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2015. vol. 213. pp. 37–42. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.400
4. Holroyd C. Building Ideas for Global Change TM Science and Technology Policies, National Competitiveness, and the Innovation Divide. 2007.
5. Huarng K.H. Essential research in technology management. Journal of Business Research. 2010. vol. 63. no. 5. pp. 451–453. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.03.017
6. Parellada F.S., Soriano D.R., Huarng K.H. An overview of the service industries’ future (priorities: Linking past and future). Service Industries Journal. 2011. vol. 31. no. 1. pp. 1–6. doi: 10.1080/02642069.2010.485197
7. Dutta S., Lanvin B., Rivera L.L., Wunsch V.S. Global Innovation Index 2021. Tracking Innovation through the COVID 19 Crisis. WIPO, 2021. doi: 10.34667/tind.44315
8. Crespo N.F., Crespo C.F. Global innovation index: Moving beyond the absolute value of ranking with a fuzzy-set analysis. Journal of Business Research. 2016. vol. 69. no. 11. pp. 5265–5271. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.123
9. Sohn S.Y., Kim M.J. Strategies for revitalization for intelligent robot industry in Korea based on structural equation model. Industrial Robot. 2010. vol. 37. no. 1. pp. 97–105. doi: 10.1108/01439911011010009
10. Ju Y., Sohn S.Y. Development of a national competitiveness index based on a structural equation model. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management. Routledge, 2014. vol. 26. no. 5. pp. 565–579. doi: 10.1080/09537325.2014.896891
11. Bong Choi S., Williams C. Innovation and firm performance in Korea and China: A cross-context test of mainstream theories. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management. 2013. vol. 25. no. 4. pp. 423–444. doi: 10.1080/09537325.2013.774346
12. Shapiro M.A., So M., Park H.W. Quantifying the national innovation system: Inter-regional collaboration networks in South Korea. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management. 2010. vol. 22. no. 7. pp. 845–857. doi: 10.1080/09537325.2010.511158
13. Sohn S.Y., Kim D.H., Jeon S.Y. Re-evaluation of global innovation index based on a structural equation model. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management. Routledge, 2016. vol. 28. no. 4. pp. 492–505. doi: 10.1080/09537325.2015.1104412
14. Pençe I., Kalkan A., Çeşmeli M.Ş. Estimation of the Country Ranking Scores on the Global Innovation Index 2016 Using the Artificial Neural Network Method. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management. World Scientific Publishing Co. 2019. vol. 16. no. 4. doi: 10.1142/S0219877019400078
15. Carpita M., Ciavolino E. A generalized maximum entropy estimator to a simple linear measurement error model with a composite indicator. Advances in Data Analysis and Classification. 2017. vol. 11. no. 1. pp. 139–158. doi: 10.1007/s11634–016–0237 y
16. Jankowska B., Matysek-Jȩdrych A., Mroczek-Dabrowska K. Efficiency of National Innovation Systems – Poland and Bulgaria in the Context of the Global Innovation Index. Comparative Economic Research. 2017. vol. 20. no. 3. pp. 77–94. doi: 10.1515/cer 2017–0021
17. Al-Sudairi M., Bakry S.H. Knowledge issues in the global innovation index: Assessment of the state of Saudi Arabia versus countries with distinct development. Innovation: Management, Policy and Practice. 2014. vol. 16. no. 2. pp. 176–183. doi: 10.1080/14479338.2014.11081980
18. Vlasova V., Kuznetsova T., Rud V. Analysis of the drivers and constraints of Russia's development based on the information of the Global Innovation Index. Voprosy Ekonomiki. 2017. no. 8. pp. 24-41. doi: 10.32609/0042–8736–2017–8–24–41 (in Russian).
19. North C. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. 1990. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511808678
20. Michael S.C., Pearce J.A. The need for innovation as a rationale for government involvement in entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development. 2009. vol. 21. no. 3. pp. 285–302. doi: 10.1080/08985620802279999
21. Okrah J., Hajduk-Stelmachowicz M. Political stability and innovation in Africa. Journal of International Studies. 2020. vol. 13. no. 1. pp. 234–246. doi: 10.14254/2071–8330.2020/13–1/15
22. Szalacha-Jarmużek J., Pietrowicz K. Missing causality and absent institutionalization. A case of Poland and methodological challenges for future studies of interlocking directorates. Recent issues in sociological research Economics & Sociology. 2018. vol. 11. no. 4. doi: 10.14254/2071–789X.2018/11–4/10
23. Carlsson B. Internationalization of innovation systems: A survey of the literature. Research Policy. 2006. vol. 35. no. 1. pp. 56–67. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2005.08.003
24. Ergashev T.E. Innovation, Human Capital And Youth In An Informed Society. ISJ Theoretical & Applied Science. 2020. vol. 10. no. 90. pp. 21–23. doi: 10.15863/TAS.2020.10.90.5
25. You S., Zhou K.Z., Jia L. How does human capital foster product innovation? The contingent roles of industry cluster features. Journal of Business Research. 2021. vol. 130. pp. 335–347. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.03.046
26. Bianchi A.J. Management indicators model to evaluate performance of IT organizations, PICMET 01. Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology. 2001. pp. 217–229. doi: 10.1109/PICMET.2001.952021
27. Czajkowski Z. et al. Human Capital and Innovation – Basic Concepts, Measures, and Interdependencies. Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management. 2014. pp. 53–80. doi: 10.1007/978–3–319–02072–3_2
28. De La Fuente A. Infrastructures and Productivity: An Updated Survey. 2010. Available at: https://bse.eu/research/working-papers/infrastructures-and-productivity-updated-survey
29. Del Bo C.F., Florio M. Infrastructure and Growth in a Spatial Framework: Evidence from the EU regions. European Planning Studies. 2012. vol. 20. no. 8. pp. 1393–1414. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2012.680587
30. Malecki E.J. Clark University Technology and Economic Development: The Dynamics of Local, Regional, and National Change. Review by: John B. Fieser Economic Geography. African Development. 1993. vol. 69. no. 1. pp. 94–98. doi: 10.2307/143893
31. Sampelalong E., Sukartini N.M. Infrastructure And Development. Gorontalo Development Review. 2020. vol. 3. no. 1. pp. 14-27. doi:10.32662/golder.v3i1.838
32. Fernandez V. The finance of innovation in Latin America. International Review of Financial Analysis. 2017. vol. 53. pp. 37–47. doi: 10.1016/j.irfa.2017.08.008
33. Wellalage N.H., Fernandez V. Innovation and SME finance: Evidence from developing countries. International Review of Financial Analysis. 2019. vol. 66. doi: 10.1016/j.irfa.2019.06.009
34. Abdolmohammadi M.J. Intellectual capital disclosure and market capitalization. Journal of Intellectual Capital. 2005. vol. 6. no. 3. pp. 397–416. doi: 10.1108/14691930510611139
35. Hall B.H., Jaffe A., Trajtenberg M. Market Value and Patent Citations. Source: The RAND Journal of Economics. 2005. vol. 36. no. 1. pp. 16–38. doi: 10.2307/1593752
36. Horbach J. Determinants of environmental innovation-New evidence from German panel data sources. Research Policy. 2008. vol. 37. no. 1. pp. 163–173. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2007.08.006
37. Linda M.R., Yonita R., Silvia E.D. The Effect of Perceived Organizational Support and Job satisfaction on Organizational Citizenship Behavior. 2019. doi: 10.2991/aebmr.k. 200305.172
38. Hassan N., Raziq A. Effects of knowledge management practices on innovation in SMEs. Management Science Letters. 2019. vol. 9. no. 7. pp. 997–1008. doi: 10.5267/j.msl.2019.4.005
39. Hall L.A., Bagchi-Sen S. A study of R&D, innovation, and business performance in the Canadian biotechnology industry. Technovation. 2002. vol. 22. 231–244 p. doi: 10.1016/S0166-4972(01)00016-5
40. Kirikkaleli D., Ozun A. Innovation capacity, business sophistication and macroeconomic stability: Empirical evidence from OECD countries. Journal of Business Economics and Management. 2019. vol. 20. no. 2. pp. 351–367. doi: 10.3846/jbem.2019.9602
41. Hernan R., Marin P.L., Siotis G. An empirical evaluation of the determinants of research joint venture formation. The Journal of Industrial Economics. 2003. vol. 51. no. 1. pp. 75-89. doi: 10.1111/1467–6451.00192
42. Connolly M. The dual nature of trade: Measuring its impact on imitation and growth. Journal of Development Economics. 2003. vol. 72. no. 1. pp. 31–55. doi: 10.1016/S0304–3878(03)00067–1
43. Hair J.F., Ringle C.M., Sarstedt M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice. 2011. vol. 19. no. 2. pp. 139–152. doi: 10.2753/MTP1069–6679190202
44. Hair Joseph F J. et al. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Los Angeles, 2017..
Review
For citations:
Djebbouri K.B., Boutouatou A.N., Khorev A.I., Ivliyev M.N. The Global Innovation Index analysis in Russia using the Structural equation model. Proceedings of the Voronezh State University of Engineering Technologies. 2022;84(3):412-426. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20914/2310-1202-2022-3-412-426
Views:
288
Email this article 
Post a Comment 
