A Mixed Type Method For Assessing Regional Innovation Potential (Example Of Tatarstan)

Abstract

The foreign experience of innovative activity of regions shows that, the creation of regional investment and innovative formations is in full swing in foreign countries, which are the core of the overall European success in policies aimed at creating, implementing and promoting new technological ideas materialized in a product. The assessment of investment and innovative activity of regions in foreign countries is provided by the compound innovation index IUS 24, which includes 24 indicators. An analysis of the approaches of domestic economists showed that they all use approximately the same set of absolute and relative indicators with different approaches to calculating the integral indicator. Currently, there are various simple and comprehensive approaches to assess regional innovation potential. The analysis of the applied methods showed that both domestic and foreign practice uses a wide range of indicators to assess innovation potential of both a single country and its regions. At the same time, there are disagreements even among experts, for example, which socio-economic indicators should be considered key ones to ensure innovation, how they are formed, etc. The study substantiates the feasibility of applying a mixed approach to assess regional innovation potential, provides an approximate system of key indicators of innovation efficiency at the micro level, as well as a system of absolute and relative indicators for assessing regional innovation potential, and offers an integral indicator of a comprehensive assessment of regional innovative activity. The proposed methodology allows selecting priority areas and measures to enhance regional innovation potential.

Keywords: Innovative activityscorecardregional innovation potentialenhance innovation potentialinnovation efficiency

Introduction

A review of scientific publications on assessment of regional innovation potential and innovative activity showed that, we have many scientific works in these areas, but there is no methodology and theoretical basis and no clear systems of indicators for assessing innovation potential of individual companies and region. As a result, issues of clarifying methodological foundations of innovative development of the Russian economy, corresponding to the state of its development and considering the dynamism and depth of the changes occurring in it recently, are becoming increasingly relevant.

Problem Statement

The authors of the study propose a system of indicators to assess regional innovation potential Rudich ( 2018), Tsydypova ( 2017), Bolshakov, Abramov, Alekhin, Zagorodnikov, and Tkachev ( 2018). It should be noted that this system of indicators should assess regional innovation potential from two positions: firstly, from the point of view of creating conditions to enhance innovation potential; secondly, in terms of assessing their efficiency. To solve this problem, it is advisable to use absolute, relative and compound indicators of innovative activity.

In the course of the study, the following issues were considered:

• To develop a system of key indicators of innovation efficiency at the micro level based on the analysis of foreign and domestic methods for assessing regional innovation potential;

• To develop a system of absolute and relative indicators of regional innovation potential based on a SWOT analysis of the Republic of Tatarstan as a socio-economic system;

• To develop of a compound indicator of comfortable innovative development and an indicator of a comprehensive integrated assessment of innovative activity of the regional economy.

Research Questions

In the course of the study, the following issues were considered:

• To develop a system of key indicators of innovation efficiency at the micro level based on the analysis of foreign and domestic methods for assessing regional innovation potential;

• To develop a system of absolute and relative indicators of regional innovation potential based on a SWOT analysis of the Republic of Tatarstan as a socio-economic system;

• To develop of a compound indicator of comfortable innovative development and an indicator of a comprehensive integrated assessment of regional innovative activity.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study is to justify the mixed approach to assess regional innovation potential. The current approaches are based on the use of both absolute and relative indicators, including integral ones. However, at the same time, the issues of comfortable innovative development in certain regions is not sufficiently analyzed. The solution to this problem is to use the expert method and identify the strengths and weaknesses of the region, its capabilities and potential threats.

Research Methods

The authors used general scientific and specific research methods. So, when studying theoretical foundations, foreign experience in assessing innovative activity, methods of scientific abstraction, analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction were used. The authors used the indicator method todevelop a system of indicators, and they used the method of expert review to assess factors that are not amenable to statistical assessment.

Findings

Currently, there is a problem of insufficient consideration for innovation efficiency, primarily at the level of individual companies ( Kolmykova, Emelyanov, & Merzlyakova, 2017). To solve this problem, Table 01 proposes an approximate system of key indicators of innovation efficiency at the micro level, the main advantage and requirement of which is their quantitative measurability and comparability. In addition, the system of indicators includes indicators for assessing the company’s activity in the field of energy conservation and environmental friendliness.

Thus, the indicators given in Table 01 are designed to assess the level of innovation potential at the micro level. At the same time, the use of these indicators to assess innovation potential will be hampered by the lack of official statistical information on individual indicators (for example, the level of energy intensity of production in certain regions, the amount of motivational payments, etc.). Summarizing the results of previous studies Fedotova ( 2016), Karasev, Beloshitsky, Trostyansky, Krivtsova, and Valerievna ( 2018) we concluded that it is more advisable to assess regional innovation potential based on the following components:

• Intra-regional potential, assessing by the level of the regional socio-economic development;

• Resource potential, including personnel and production and financial potential;

• Innovation efficiency.

Moreover, each component should be assessed based on the strengths and weaknesses of the region, its capabilities and potential threats ( Kozhukhivska, Parubok, Petrenko, Podzihun, & Udovenko, 2017; Shaimardanova, 2018).Thus, the results of our SWOT analysis of the Republic of Tatarstan as a socio-economic system ( Romanova, Donichev, & Barinov, 2017) showed that, along with a favorable geographical and geopolitical position, stable economic growth, high cultural and qualification potential, the presence of a developed scientific and educational complex and targeted regional development programs and support of innovative activity, there are also such tools of regional innovation potential as innovative activity, development and introduction of innovations, the institution of intellectual property, motivation, financing and stimulation of innovation. The authors represent the recommended system of absolute indicators for assessing regional innovation potential (see Table 02 ).

This system of quantitative indicators is of practical importance from the point of view of analyzing the dynamics of these indicators, as well as for conducting a comparative analysis of individual components of innovation potential with other regions.

The above system of indicators has different units of measurement and therefore cannot be used to summarize the features of regional innovation potential. In this regard, in order to bring the indicators to a comparable form and calculate the integral indicator, it is more expedient to use a system of relative indicators of innovation potential (see Table 03 ).

The relative indicators are summarized in four groups. To do this, a matrix was previously formed from all indicators in the Microsoft Excel program and, using correlation analysis, the relationship between each factor (individual dependence coefficient) and the effective one (the volume of innovative products (work, services) output) was revealed. A significance value was determined for each group of indicators based on generalization followed by averaging (using the arithmetic mean formula).

Let us consider the indicator of comfortable developmentto enhance innovative activity. There is no doubt that innovation potential is higher in the region with necessary conditions created for potential participants in innovative activity. From this point of view, it is necessary to consider the level of legal regulation of this type of activity, the tools of real support for existing and potential innovators and their level of awareness, assessment of the human factor and its motivation ( Glukhova & Zubarev, 2017; Hlaváček, 2017; Ilyash, Dzhadan, & Ostasz, 2018). However, it is not possible to quantify these factors quantitatively. Therefore, it is necessary to apply an expert approach.

This approach provides for systematic identification of opinions and assessments of key participants in regional innovative activity. Information is collected through a specially organized survey and questionnaire, based on generalization of the results which allow assessing:

• Quality of legal acts regulating regional innovative processes;

• Innovation infrastructure facilities;

• Regional tools to support innovation.

Then, the compound indicator of comfortable development of innovation potential (Icdip) is calculated using the arithmetic average formula.

In the course of the study, a survey was conducted of 120 current (representatives of small, medium and large businesses) and potential (senior students of technical universities) participants of innovative activity of the Republic of Tatarstan. Most respondents note the possibility of financial support from the regional authorities (48.6%) as the main factors for the development of innovation potential. So, 19.2% were in favor of financial support for participation in exhibitions and fairs, 17.9% - in favor of providing tax benefits, 11.5% of the total number of survey participants were in favor of grant support for innovative projects and providing guarantees of regional and local authorities.

Least of all participants were in favor of providing budget investments (4.9%), access to venture lending (4.6%) and preferential use of municipal property (5.1%). These indicators mean that it is impossible to receive this kind of support from the regional and local authorities, and this kind of tools of state support for innovation, especially in terms of providing innovators with free production facilities that are available in each municipality, are not used sufficiently.

Depending on the significance level of each indicator, the authors assigned them an individual (by expert means), and then a compound significance value calculated using the geometric mean formula. This formula is justified by the presence of individual significance indices in the initial information (Table 04 ).

The compound value of comfortable innovative development in the Republic of Tatarstan amounted to:

Conclusion

The methods used in domestic practice, even though they were developed considering many years of experience of developed countries, have certain disadvantages that often limit the conditions for their practical application. We can distinguish those methods that consider only statistical indicators or only expert evaluation. In our opinion, a mixed approach should be used to assess innovation potential. So, to assess innovation potential at the micro level, it is more appropriate to use a system of absolute and relative quantitative indicators. An expert approach is more acceptable to assess comfortable development to enhance innovation efficiency.

The use of official statistics allows an objective assessment of most indicators characterizing regional innovative activity. The expert approach to assess factors that have a significant impact, but are not amenable to statistical assessment, will allow considering assessments and opinions of direct participants in innovation process and effective tools and conditions for the development of innovative activity. This approach will cover all the components of innovation potential. The proposed method is unique since it is easy to calculate its indicators, which allow us to assess the value of regional innovation potential, analyze the current situation, identify the main trends and determine priority development directions.

In addition, the use of the indicators proposed in modern domestic ratings of Russian regions will provide the distribution of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation that is more adequate to the challenges of post-industrial transformation and the emerging innovative economy, the added value of which is created through the creative activity of workers.

References

• Bolshakov, S. N., Abramov, A. V., Alekhin, M. Y., Zagorodnikov, M. A., & Tkachev, S. A. (2018). Analysis of investment processes as an indicator of the economic development of Russian regions. Espacios, 39(27). Retrieved from: https://www.revistaespacios.com/a18v39n27/18392712.html Accessed: 14.11.19.
• Federal State Statistic Service (2018). Science and innovation. Retrieved from: https://www.gks.ru/folder/14477 Accessed: 01.10.19
• Fedotova, A. Yu. (2016). The analysis of techniques of assessment of innovative and technological capacity of regions in the context of development of dynamic abilities of territorial-branch complexes. Modern Scientific Research and Innovation, 10(66), 216-220. [in Rus.].
• Glukhova, M. G., & Zubarev, A. A. (2017). Development of the methodological approach to the assessment of the innovation position of oil and gas machine-building enterprises in the market. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 7(5), 279-290.
• Hlaváček, P. (2017). Use of innovation vouchers for the regional innovation environment development. Economic Annals-XX, 166(7-8), 91-95. https://doi.org/10.21003/ea.V166-18
• Ilyash, O., Dzhadan, I., & Ostasz, G. (2018). The influence of the industry’s innovation activities indices on the industrial products’ revenue of Ukraine. Economics & Sociology, 11(4), 317-331. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789X.2018/11-4/21
• Karasev, O., Beloshitsky, A., Trostyansky, S., Krivtsova, A., & Valerievna, V. N. (2018). Development of national innovation systems in developed countries. European Research Studies Journal, 21, 701-712.
• Kolmykova, T. S., Emelyanov, S. G., & Merzlyakova, E. A. (2017). Research of innovative potential of the region. Journal of Applied Engineering Science, 15(3), 276-279.
• Kozhukhivska, R., Parubok, N., Petrenko, N., Podzihun, S., & Udovenko, I. (2017). Methods of assessment of efficiency of creating regional innovative clusters for dynamic development of economics. Investment Management and Financial Innovations, 14(3), 302-312. https://doi.org/10.21511/imfi.14(3-2).2017.01
• Romanova, A. D., Donichev, O. A., & Barinov, M. A. (2017). Methods to analyze and assess the innovative capacity of socio-economic systems of regions. Economic Analysis: Theory and Practice, 16(2), 260-273. https://doi.org/10.24891/ea.16.2.260
• Rudich, S. B. (2018). Regional innovation potential and the main approaches to its assessment. Bulletin of Tomsk State University of Economics, 42, 89-104. https://doi.org/10.17223/19988648/42/6 [in Rus.].
• Shaimardanova, L. I. (2018). Problems and disadvantages in assessment methods innovative potential in the investment attraction of the region. Theory and Practice of Modern Science, 1(31), 562-565. [in Rus.].
• Tsydypova, E. S. (2017). To the question of the method of assessing the innovative potential of the region in the context of sustainable development. European Social Science Journal, 7, 154-158. [in Rus.].