Innovation policy measurement: analysis of Lithuania’s case

Abstract

The article seeks to justify a need and possibilities to form Lithuania's innovation performance measurement framework in terms of existing international practice. To do so different analytical tools, known worldwide in innovation fields, are discussed and the main categories of the assessment are summarised. Taking into account the various instances from the index practice, Lithuania's innovation performance results and their tendencies in comparison with other countries are analysed. To conclude, several suggestions are drawn for the measurement framework of the Lithuanian innovation policy.

Corporate Governance, Firm Performance, and Economic Growth – Theoretical Analysis

“…Corporate governance is an important channel not only in achieving economic growth but also distributing the beneficial effects of growth throughout the society. All started with Schumpeter's creative destruction theory and his view on corporate institutions and new firms as vital for technological development (Baležentis, Balkienė 2014). Despite a vast body of literature on the subject this nexus is not even near to be unravel.…”

Determinants of Technological Innovations in Health Tourism Enterprises

“…The effect is the stimulation of innovation and the development of intellectual capital and entrepreneurship (Zorska, 2007). The most interesting issue for technological innovativeness is innovation policy (Teece, 1997;Grupp & Mogee, 2004;Balezentis & Balkiene, 2014;Nazarko, 2016;Halicka, 2016). The main area of the research on innovativeness is innovative activity of production enterprises (Tuominen et al, 2004;Perunovic & Christiansen, 2005) with special consideration for technological progress, R&D expenditure and its roles in the innovation process (Webber, 1996;Urban & Czerska, 2016).…”

Untitled

“… innovation policy (Furman, Porter, & Stern, 2002;Grupp & Mogee, 2004;Balezentis, & Balkiene, 2014;Chen, & Nie, 2014;Chen, Nie, & Wen, 2015;Djeri, Armenski, Tesanovic, Bradic, & Vukosav, 2014);  the innovation drivers in the economy (Hollenstein, 2003;Gault, 2011;Rezk et al 2016);  the innovative activity of enterprises (mainly production enterprises) (Tuominen, Rajala, & Möller, 2004;Perunovic & Christiansen, 2005) with particular consideration given to technological progress and R&D expenditure as well as their roles in the innovation process (Aw, Roberts, & Xu, 2011;Urban & Czerska, 2016;Ahmed et al, 2017;Mouraud, 2017;Barberis et al, 2017;Passerini et al, 2017);  sector-specific research on the innovativeness of the economy (Garcia & Hollanders, 2009;Pauceanu, 2016;Laužikas, et al, 2016);  the innovativeness of small and medium-sized enterprises (Frel, 2003),  the innovativeness of tourism enterprises (Hjalager, 2010;Szymańska, 2009Szymańska, , 2013;  innovativeness in the context of a knowledge-based economy and in the globalisation process (Rycroft, 2003;Ejdys, Ustinovicius, & Stankevičienė, 2015;García-Fuentes, de Torre, 2017;Zemlickiene, et al 2016);  attempts are also taken to seek innovation in different areas of social activity and to link completely different phenomena (Deshpande & Farley, 2004;Ejdys, 2015) or spatial planning the city (Hajduk, 2015).…”