As the world experience indicates, the favourableness of investment climare or, in other words, a region's entrepreneurial environment determines a region's sustainable development. First assessments of investment climate were developed and applied by western experts in the middle of the 1960s. They were based on the subjective assessment of countries' characteristics. The further development of the methodology for comparative assessment of countries' investment climate started to expand and complicate the system of characteristics assessed by experts, and to introduce objective statistical indexes. In recent decades, more research into investment climate at the level of regions appeared, as a result of the understanding of a specific and unique character of regional features, as well as its dramatic differences from the country as a whole. It is possible to distinguish objective, subjective, and subjective-objective metholologies for assessment of investment climate. According to the outcomes of the subjective-objective assessment of the investment climate in Latvia's (Latgale), Lithuania's (Vilnius, Alytus, Utena, Panevezys, and Kaunas counties), and Belarus's (Vitebsk, Grodno, Minsk, Brest oblasts, and Minsk city) cross-border regions, the regions under study were divided into 4 groups in accordance with W.Zapf's Wellbeing Typology Matrix: 1) low objective and subjective indicators -"Deprivation", 2) low objective indicators and high subjective indicators -"Adaptation", 3) high objective indicators and low subjective indicators -"Dissonance", 4) high objective and subjective indicators -"Well-being".

Assessment of innovation potential is becoming an increasingly urgent problem. Many scientists and researchers are interested in this issue, alas, evaluate innovation potential differently. Some scholars emphasize resources, while others think about the achieved result. Another group of researchers focus on the transition process from resources to results while evaluating innovation potential. This paper attempts to integrate the three basic approaches (resource, process and resulting) and suggest a combination of known innovation potential assessment methods. The author claims that the innovation development goal is the result (abilities) and initial resources (opportunities) and stresses a process of transformation into an innovative product. The author offers an original definition of the innovation potential of a region. Complex evaluation with the sum method leads to an original integral indicator. Selected geographical areas are grouped into quintiles; the obtained results are depicted on maps for more convenient perception and visualization. The obtained results are interpreted, and policy implications are suggested.

The concept of innovation potential is complicated and complex, its evolution is closely related to the concept of innovation. There are several approaches to define the innovation potential. Some scientists and researchers define innovation potential as a set of several resources, other scientists -as a result of innovative activity. The author is a supporter of the resource approach and explores the potential of innovation from the perspective of resources. There are several approaches to determining the innovation potential from the resource perspective, however, they are mostly intended for the evaluation of the innovation potential at the national level or at the level of large regions. In addition, most of the assessment methodologies are tailored to the analysis of specific regions and it is difficult to adapt them to the evaluation of other regions. Therefore, the author develops his own methodology for assessing innovation potential, adapted for NUTS3 regions, and uses it to assess the innovation potential of Latvian, Lithuanian and Belarusian regions. The given approach makes it possible to promptly evaluate existing resources and define opportunities, thus providing the region with a stable market position, especially within the regional context, which is required by the ever-increasing and fierce competition.