National Innovation System Dynamics in East Central Europe, the Baltic Countries, and Russia

Abstract

In this chapter, the structure and dynamics of national innovation systems are explored to produce a comprehensive picture of the current, as well as the past, performance of the countries of East Central Europe, the Baltic countries, and Russia vis-à-vis their competiveness and innovative capabilities. The results highlight the importance of political and economic freedom, science, and education for promoting innovation. According to the principal component analyses, the best performing countries of the East Central Europe and the Baltic countries, in terms of their national innovation systems, have developed rapidly after the disintegration of the Soviet bloc and compare well in global rankings of innovative capabilities and competitiveness with standings above the countries of Latin America and South-East Asia. The countries under closer examination here that are members of the EU seem to be in a better position compared to the non-EU member countries. Thus, most of the countries in East Central Europe and the Baltic countries have been able to catch up with the global leaders during the analysed time period (1992–2008). However, this kind of development is yet to manifest in Russia.

The Efficiency of National Innovation Systems in Post-Soviet Countries: DEA-Based Approach

“…The leaders of our rating are Lithuania, Estonia, and Kazakhstan. Regarding the NIS efficiency of Lithuania and Estonia, this results in good agreement with Makkonen [60] and Alnafrah and Mouselli [61]. However, contrary to expectations, the NIS of Kazakhstan has high efficiency as well.…”

“…Makkonen [60] examined the performance of NIS in the countries of East Central Europe, the Baltic countries, and Russia after the disintegration of the Soviet Bloc. Based on the principal component analysis (PCA), he came to the conclusion that members of the EU seem to be in a better position compared to non-EU member countries.…”

National innovation system capabilities among leader and follower countries: widening gaps or global convergence?

“…When it comes to distinct country groupings it seems that for example the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) as well as the new EU-member countries of the East and Central Europe seem to have been able to catch-up to the world leaders in innovation (Altenburg, Schmitz, and Stamm 2008;Makkonen 2014). As pointed out in the introduction this, however, does not necessarily indicate that global convergence would be under way.…”

“…Therefore, countries with basic (democratic) freedoms (such as freedom of speech and press, political rights, etc. ), low levels of corruption and institutions supportive towards innovation seem to do well in global NIS comparisons (Makkonen 2014), since political-institutional processes, stability, and arrangements play a crucial role in the competitive performance of firms at the sectoral and national levels (Kim 1998). For example, political instability exerts a strong (negative) influence on innovation inputs in NISs (Allard, Martinez, and Williams 2012) and efforts to foster innovations within an economy will be more productive if accompanied by policy reforms aimed at controlling corruption (Anokhin and Schulze 2009).…”