Analysis of innovation indicators of European countries and Ukraine

M.Y. Kolesnyk1
1. Sumy State University (Sumy, Ukraine)
Innovative Management
172 - 181


Today, in the world economic literature has accumulated a lot of approaches to the evaluation of state innovative development. Composite indicators are used to compare various countries with different levels of development, but these indicators do not describe the innovative environment of a particular country in detail. At the same time, there is a separate way in the literature that analyzes the national innovative system. This way characterizes only a particular country, uses the factors that affect the results of innovative activity in the country.

The aim of the article is to explore the factors that influence on innovation activities of countries of the European Union, as well as to compare these factors with the indicators of the European innovation Scoreboard (EIS), with in order to elaborate proposals for public policy in Ukraine and to develop of national innovation activity.

Methodology. Considering the current trends, we had carried out the comparative analysis of the innovative activities of the countries with used of composite indicators of the European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS), as well as we had analyzed the factors that explain differences in innovative activity between the some countries. The study based on analysis and comparison four countries: Bulgaria, Poland, Romania and Ukraine.

The results of the analysis.  The results of our studies have demonstrated that there are disadvantages in the evaluation of the national innovative activity, which is based on the methodology of the European innovation Scoreboard (EIS). Human Resource Indicators describe not all areas of the education system. In accordance with the European innovation Scoreboard (EIS), Bulgaria and Romania have a high index of human capital. At the same time, these countries have problems in the field of higher education and scientific research. A common problem for all this countries is a weak link between research and enterprises; there is no effective link between research and enterprises. This can be explained by post-socialist past in these countries. Poland is ahead of other developed countries. Economic policy, which aims to raise funds from foreign investors for the development of business and macro environment, there are more successful than in other analyzed countries. However, the good performance of innovation in Poland does not mean that the country has to stop at the achieved results. It has been found that it is necessary to raise the level of training and retraining human resource in order to improve that level of innovative development. In addition, cooperation between universities and enterprises will have to be more efficient. Two types of scenarios were defined for improving innovation activity in the analyzed countries. The first is the need to invest more in research, development and education of people. Second - you need to make cooperation between the public and private institutions, including between universities and enterprises.

Conclusion and directions of further researches. The results showed that it is necessary the effective interaction of the state and business policy that would implement the great potential of Ukraine; to develop specific measures for the development of scientific industries; increase the amount of investment in research and development activities of the country. From this position, we have identified additional ways to improve the country's innovative system taking into account the level of economic development.

innovative development, indicators of economic and political situation in the country composite indicators, comparative analysis, factor analysis

  1. Edquist C., & Hommen L. (2008) Small Country Innovation Systems. Globalization, Change and Policy in Asia and Europe. Cheltenham UK, Northampton MA USA: Edward Elgar.
  2. Metcalfe S., & Ramlogan R. (2008) Innovation systems and the competitive process in developing economies. In Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 48 (2), 433-446.
  3. Dutta S., Lanvin B., & Wunsch-Vincent S. (2016) The Global Innovation Index 2016: Winning with Global Innovation. Cornell University: INSEAD.
  4. The World Bank (2010) Innovation Policy A Guide for Developing Countries : The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Retrieved from Dislosed061312010.pdf.
  5. Derek H.C. Chen, & Carl J.Dahlman (2005) The Knowledge Economy, the KAM Methodology and World Bank Operations. Washington: The World Bank, D.C.
  6. Riazanov, M.A. (2012) Otsenka effektivnocti innovatsyonnoi deiatelnosti: investitsyonnyi aspect [Assessment of the effectiveness of innovative activity: investment aspect]. Extended abstract of candidate’s thesis. Vladimir [in Russian]
  7. Hollanders H., Es-Sadki N., & Kanerva M. (2016) European Innovation Scoreboard 2016. European Union: Belgium.
  8. Nicoletti, G., Scarpetta, S., & Boylaud, O. (2000) Summary indicators of product market regulation with an extension to employment protection legislation. Paris: OECD.
  9. Nardo, M., Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S., Hoffman, A., & Giovannini, E. (2005). Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators. Methodology and User Guide. OECD: European Commission.
  10. Eurostat Statistics Explained (2016). Economy and finance. Retrieved from
  11. Filippetti A., Archibugi D. (2011) Innovation in times of crisis: National Systems of Innovation, structure, and demand. Research Policy: Policy, management and economic studies of science, technology and innovation, 40, 179–192.