Assessing the effect of innovation determinants on macroeconomic development within the EU (28) countries
-
Author(s)Dana KiselakovaLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5662-5809
,
Beata SofrankovaLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9766-0467
,
Erika OnuferovaLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8529-8843
,
Veronika CabinovaLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4367-3590
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.18(2).2020.23
-
Article InfoVolume 18 2020, Issue #2, pp. 277-289
- Cited by
- 814 Views
-
144 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Innovations play an inevitable role in achieving macroeconomic growth of countries, and innovative activity is perceived as a source of sustainable development. This paper’s main objective is to explore the impact of innovation determinants on the macroeconomic development of the EU (28) member countries and identify key problem areas distorting sustainable development and growth of these countries. The research analysis is performed using panel data regression models estimated from 2010 to 2018. Innovation potential was quantified using selected indicators, such as patent granted, high-tech exports, gross domestic expenditures on R&D, government expenditure on education, direct investment, gross fixed capital, and tertiary educational attainment. Such indicators as real GDP per capita and GNI per capita were applied to measure economic growth. The results provide evidence of a statistically significant relationship between innovation and economic growth (p < 0.01). Therefore, both research hypotheses were accepted. Based on innovation potential assessment, the statistically significant impact of five indicators were confirmed (high-tech exports, gross domestic expenditure on R&D, government expenditure on education, direct investment, and tertiary educational attainment). In this backdrop, the most significant effect was revealed for variable gross domestic expenditure on R&D (0.5343). The findings lead to the conclusion that the EU’s and national innovation policies and initiatives should aim to create framework conditions that favor the innovation environment and increase R&D expenditure to endorse real economic growth.
Acknowledgment
This article has been prepared within the research project VEGA No. 1/0279/19 “Model approaches to increase performance and competitiveness in the European area in the context of sustainable development”.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)O31, O47, O52
-
References42
-
Tables5
-
Figures1
-
- Figure 1. The analysis of the GDPpc and GNIpc average values development in the EU (28) countries
-
- Table 1. Overview of the most common indicators used for the country’s innovation potential measurement
- Table 2. Definition of selected variables entering into analyses
- Table 3. Descriptive statistics of the selected innovation indicators
- Table 4. Panel data regression analysis between GDPpc and innovation indicators
- Table 5. Panel data regression analysis between GNIpc and innovation indicators
-
- Afonasova, M. A., Panfilova, E. E., Galichkina, M. A., & Slusarczyk, B. (2019). Digitalization in economy and innovation: The effect on social and economic processes. Polish Journal of Management Studies, 19(2), 22-32.
- Andrijauskiene, M., & Dumčiuvienė, D. (2019). Inward foreign direct investment and national innovative capacity. Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, 30(3), 339-348.
- Balcerzak, A. P. (2020). Quality of institutions in the European Union countries. Application of TOPSIS based on entropy measure for objective weighting. Acta Polytechnica Hungarica, 17(1), 101-122.
- Banelienė, R., Melnikas, B., Strazdas, R., & Toločka, E. (2018). Innovation activities and the impact of investment in R&D on economic growth: Assessment and modelling. Terra Economicus, 16(4), 66-76.
- Belas, J., Dvorský, J., Strnad, Z., Valaskova, K., & Çera, G. (2019). Improvement of the quality of business environment model: Case of the SME segment. Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, 30(5), 601-611.
- Bistrova, J., & Lace, N. (2016). Effect of innovation on the EU member-countries economic development. Paper presented at 9th International Scientific Conference: Business and Management 2016. Vilnius, Lithuania.
- Boly, V., Morel, L., Assielou, N. G., & Camargo, M. (2014). Evaluating innovative processes in French firms: Methodological proposition for firm innovation capacity evaluation. Research Policy, 43(3), 608-622.
- Brożek, K. (2018). Impact of selected determinants of innovation on the economic growth of the Visegrad group countries. 17th International Scientific Conference on Hradec Economic Days, 9(1), 101-111.
- Ciocanel, A. B., & Pavalescu, F. M. (2015). Innovation and Competitiveness in European Context. Procedia Economics and Finance, 32, 728-737.
- Dobrota, C. E., Marcu, N., Siminica, M., & Netoiu, L. M. (2019). Disparities, gaps and evolution trends of innovation, as a vector of economic development, in the countries of the European Union. Romanian Journal of Economic Forecasting, 22(4), 174-184.
- European Commission. (2015). The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
- European Patent Office. (2019). European Patent Register.
- Eurostat. (2019). Your key to European statistics.
- Galindo-Martin, M. A., Mendez-Picazo, M. T., & Castano-Martinez, M. S. (2019). The role of innovation and institutions in entrepreneurship and economic growth in two groups of countries. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 26(3), 485-502.
- Grabara, J. (2019). Sustainable development – never fulfilled dream. Quality – Access to Success, 20(1), 565-570.
- Greene, W. H. (2003). Econometric Analysis (4th ed). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
- Grodzicki, T. (2018). Fostering Sustainable Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure as a Part of Sustainable Development Agenda in the EU Countries: Spatial Analysis. In Challenging the status quo in management and economics: Strategica International Academic Conference, Sixth Edition, Bucharest, Romania, October 11-12 (pp. 130-141).
- Hadad, S. (2015). Analytic hierarchy process analysis for choosing a corporate social entrepreneurship strategy. Management & Marketing, 10(3), 185-207.
- Halkos, G., & Skouloudis, A. (2018). Corporate social responsibility and innovative capacity: Intersection in a macro-level perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 182, 291-300.
- Haseeb, M., Kot, S., Hussain, H. I., & Jermsittiparsert, K. (2019). Impact of economic growth, environmental pollution, and energy consumption on health expenditure and R&D expenditure of ASEAN countries. Energies, 12(19), 1-20.
- Hilkevics, S., & Hilkevica, G. (2017). New information technologies use for Latvian stock companies financial health evaluation. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 5(2), 178-189.
- Ivanova, E., & Cepel, M. (2018). The impact of innovation performance on the competitiveness of the Visegrad 4 countries. Journal of Competitiveness, 10(1), 54-72.
- Janoskova, K., & Kral, P. (2019). An in-depth analysis of the Summary Innovation Index in the V4 countries. Journal of Competitiveness, 11(2), 68-83.
- Kasa, R. (2015). Approximating innovation potential with neurofuzzy robust model. Investigaciones Europeas de Dirección y Economía de la Empresa, 21(1), 35-46.
- Kaynak, S., Altuntas, S., & Dereli, T. (2017). Comparing the innovation performance of EU candidate countries: an entropy-based TOPSIS approach. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja, 30(1), 31-54.
- Kowalska, A., Kovarnik, J., Hamplova, E., & Prazak, P. (2018). The Selected topics for comparison in Visegrad four Countries. Economies, 6(3), 1-15.
- Maharramov, A., Sariyev, K., Shamilova, H., & Rasulova, M. (2018). Impact of applicable scientific innovations on the economic growth. In 6th International Conference on Control and Optimization with Industrial Applications (COIA) (pp. 205-207).
- Mihai, M., & Titan, E. (2014). Education and innovation in the context of economies globalization. Procedia Economics and Finance, 15, 1042-1046.
- Proksch, D., Haberstroh, M. M., & Pinkwart, A. (2017). Increasing the national innovative capacity: Identifying the pathways to success using a comparative method. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 116, 256-270.
- Pukala, R., Sira, E., & Vavrek, R. (2018). Risk management and financing among start-ups. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 3, 153-161.
- Que, J., & Zhang, X. (2018). The role of foreign and domestic venture capital in innovation: evidence from China. Accounting & Finance, 60(1), 1077-1110.
- Raghuapathi, V., & Raghupathi, W. (2017). Innovation at county-level: Association between economic development and patents. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 6(4), 1-20.
- Rajnoha, R., Lesnikova, P., Stefko, R., Schmidtova, J., & Formanek, I. (2019). Transformations in strategic business planning in the context of sustainability and business goals setting. Transformations in Business & Economics, 18(2), 44-66.
- Risso, W. A., & Carrera, E. J. S. (2019). On the impact of innovation and inequality in economic growth. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 28(1), 64-81.
- Sidorova, E. (2018). The innovation development of the BRICS countries: Preconditions and prospects for cooperation. International Organizations Research Journal, 13(1), 34-50.
- Tomaszewski, M., & Świadek, A. (2017). The impact of the economic conditions on the innovation activity of the companies from selected Balkan states. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja, 30(1), 1896-1913.
- World Bank. (2019). World Bank Open Data.
- Wu, J., Ma, Z., & Zhuo, S. (2017). Enhancing national innovative capacity: The impact of high-tech international trade and inward foreign direct investment. International Business Review, 26(3), 502-514.
- Yildirim, D. C., & Arun, K. (2019). Effects of economic clusters, FDI and R&D on innovation: developing countries in European Monetary Union example. International Journal of Innovation, 7(2), 236-251.
- Zang, L., Xiong, F., Lao, X., & Gao, Y. (2018). Does governance efficiency matter for national innovative capacity? One tale from different countries. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 31(2), 239-252.
- Zeng, D. Z. (2017). Measuring the Effectiveness of the Chinese Innovation System: A Global Value Chain Approach. International Journal of Innovation Studies, 1(1), 57-71.
- Zhao, J. X. (2018). An empirical study on the impact of technological innovation on economic growth-taking Shandong Province as an example. Proceedings of the 4th Annual International Conference on Social Science and Contemporary Humanity Development (SSCHD) (pp. 454-457).
-
Impact on poverty and income inequality in Malaysia’s economic growth
Rabiul Islam ,
Ahmad Bashawir Abdul Ghani ,
Irwanshah Zainal Abidin ,
Jeya Malar Rayaiappan
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.15(1).2017.05
Problems and Perspectives in Management Volume 15, 2017 Issue #1 pp. 55-62 Views: 11919 Downloads: 5693 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯPoverty and income inequality are extreme issues that still exist in Malaysia. Any rise in poverty and income inequality definitely affect economic growth. There are many great efforts taken by the government of Malaysia to eradicate poverty and to reduce the gap of income inequality which occurs since 1970’s. The incidence of poverty and income inequality is higher in rural areas compared to urban areas. This paper is mainly to study the level of poverty and income inequality in Malaysia together with government intervention to develop Malaysia’s economic growth. The research is focused among the working people at Ipoh, Perak. In this paper, questionnaire forms are being distributed to get information regarding the issue of poverty and income inequality. It also looks into the strategies taken by the government of Malaysia to eradicate poverty and income inequality. Few recommendations are given in terms of education policy, financial aid and assistance from government and non-government organization (NGO) to upgrade the standard and quality of living among the poor and lower-income group of people.
-
Impact of inflation on economic growth: evidence from Nigeria
Anthony Olugbenga Adaramola ,
Oluwabunmi Dada
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/imfi.17(2).2020.01
Investment Management and Financial Innovations Volume 17, 2020 Issue #2 pp. 1-13 Views: 9148 Downloads: 5477 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯIn an attempt to examine the influence of inflation on the growth prospects of the Nigerian economy, the study employs the autoregressive distributed lag on the selected variables, i.e. real gross domestic product (GDP), inflation rate, interest rate, exchange rate, degree of economy`s openness, money supply, and government consumption expenditures for the period 1980–2018. The study findings indicate that inflation and real exchange rate exert a significant negative impact on economic growth, while interest rate and money supply indicate a positive and significant impact on economic growth. Other variables in the model depict no influence on the economic growth of Nigeria. The causality result shows the unidirectional relationships between interest rate, exchange rate, government consumption expenditures and gross domestic product. However, inflation and the degree of openness show no causal relationship with gross domestic product. As a result, the study recommends that a more pragmatic effort is needed by the monetary authorities to target the inflation vigorously to prevent its adverse effect by ensuring a tolerable rate that would stimulate the economic growth of Nigeria.
-
Formalization of the impact of imbalances in the movement of financial resources on economic growth of countries in Central and Eastern Europe
Serhiy Kozmenko ,
Maxim Korneyev
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/afc.01(1).2017.06
Accounting and Financial Control Volume 1, 2017 Issue #1 pp. 48-58 Views: 7878 Downloads: 1375 TO CITEThe article deals with the impact of financialization on economic growth in countries of Central and Eastern Europe. It determinesthe impact of imbalances in the movement of financial resources caused by financialization on economic growth of these countries. It proves that the implementation of measures aimed at increasing the openness of the economy and maintaining solvent demand have a positive impact on economic growth of the surveyed countries in the long run. It also proves the importance of developing a set of measures of strategic nature regulating imbalances in the movement of financial resources caused by financialization.
