Regulation of the national innovation system in the glocalization aspect

Sergey I. Kravchenko


The national innovation systems (NIS) development is characterized by many heterogeneous factors with non-obvious causal connections and an uncertain power of influence on the result. The situation is complicated by the turbulence of the environment caused by the processes of globalization and the formation of a new industry. Considering that country's innovation system is being transformed within the framework of certain supranational conditions and together with them, the paper proposes a scientific and practical toolkit for NIS regulation in terms of justifying a set of priority target regulators that can be effectively influenced in the context of all its components, taking into account the glocalization aspect - opportunities for optimizing local features and global trends.The scientific and methodological approach is based on the analysis of 136 world's economies in the context of the Quadruple helix model, which takes into account the co-evolutionary interaction of all NIS complexes. At the same time, the deductive method of generalization was used, when first, a cluster analysis is carried out on an expanded set of indicators, and then, based on the methods of genetic algorithms, ranking and Pareto-selection, the most significant indicators for regulation are selected without loss of representativeness of the sample.Based on the study results, four basic types of transnational innovation systems (TNIS) have been identified, to which, with one approximation or another, all national macroeconomics in the world can be attributed. It is proved that the motion vectors of each individual NIS, on the one hand, are different, on the other - can be significantly limited by the specificity of its TNIS type.On the Poland’s case two pools of regulatory indicators are identified, which are recommended for the formation of targets for the NIS development, taking into account its specificity and orientation to either a cluster leader or a world one. Precisely these pools must determine the imperatives that can be effectively influenced by the government within their functions and powers. By changes' modeling in the development vector of Poland's NIS is demonstrated the glocalization complexity in the innovation sphere. The main local reactions of countries to global challenges is summarized.The practical prospect of the study lies in the possibility of conducting variable analytical and predictive studies of the directions of innovative development of a particular country in the context of global and cluster trends.


innovation system; spiral of innovations; glocalization; cluster analysis; target regulators; development vector

Full Text:



Vishnevsky, V.P., & Knjazev, S.I. (2018). How to Increase the Readiness of Ukraine’s Industry to Smart Transformations. Science and Innovation, 14(4), pp. 55-69 [in Ukrainian]. doi:

Freeman, С. (1982). Technological Infrastructure and International Competitiveness. Retrieved from:

Metcalfe, J. S. (1988). The Diffusion of Innovation: an interpretative survey (p. 560-589). In Dosi, G. et al. (Eds.) Technical Change and Economic Theory. London and New York: Pinter.

Lundvall, В.-А. (2007). National Innovation Systems – Analytical Concept and Development Tool. Industry and Innovation, 14(1), pp. 95-119.

Balzat, M., & Pyka, A. (2006). Mapping national innovation systems in the OECD area. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation, 2 (1-2), рр. 158-176.

Godinho, M., Mendonça, S., & Pereira, T. (2005). Towards a taxonomy of innovation systems. Working Papers Department of Economics 2005/13, ISEG - Lisbon School of Economics and Management, Department of Economics, Universidade de Lisboa.

Enright, M-J. (2000). The Globalization of Competition and the Localization of Competitive Advantage: Policies towards regional clustering. In N., Hood, & S., Young (Eds.). The Globalization of Multinational Enterprise Activity and Economic Development. Basingstoke: MacMillan.

Roudometof, V. (2015). The Glocal and Global Studies. Globalizations, 12(5), pp. 774-787. doi:

Lundquist, K., & Trippl, M. (2013). Distance, proximity and types of crossborder innovation systems: a conceptual analysis. Regional Studies, 47(3), pp. 1-11. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2011.560933

Govindarajan, V., & Trimble., C. (2012). Reverse Innovation Create Far from Home, Win Everywhere. Boston: Harvard University Press.

Cooke, P. (2005). Regionally Asymmetric Knowledge Capabilities and Open Innovation: Exploring Globalisation 2 – A New Model of Industry Organisation. Research Policy, 34(8), pp. 1128-1149. doi:

Wang, Y., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Roijakkers, N. (2012). Exploring the impact of open innovation on national systems of innovation – A theoretical analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(3), pp. 419-428. doi:

Intarakumnerd, P., & Goto, A. (2018). Role of public research institutes in national innovation systems in industrialized countries: The cases of Fraunhofer, NIST, CSIRO, AIST, and ITRI. Research Policy, 47(7), pp. 1309-1320. doi:

Datta, S., Saad, M., & Sarpong, D. (2019). National systems of innovation, innovation niches, and diversity in university systems. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 143, pp. 27-36. doi:

Lu, W.-M., Kweh, Q.L., & Huang, C.-L. (2014). Intellectual capital and national innovation systems performance. Knowledge-Based Systems, 71, pp. 201-210. doi:

Аmosha, А. I., & Nikolaenko, А. I. (2015). National Innovative System of Ukraine in Context of International Comparisons. The Economic bulletin of Donbass, 1(39), pp. 115-121 [in Ukrainian].

Itskowitz, G. (2011). Triple helix model. Innovation, 4 (150), pp. 5-10 [in Russian].

Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2017). The impact of Triple Helix agents on entrepreneurial innovations' performance: An inside look at enterprises located in an emerging economy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 119, pp. 294-309. doi:

Mêgnigbêto, E. (2018). Modelling the Triple Helix of university-industry-government relationships with game theory: Core, Shapley value and nucleolus as indicators of synergy within an innovation system. Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), pp. 1118-1132.

Carayannis, E., & Grigoroudis, E. (2016). Quadruple Innovation Helix and Smart Specialization: Knowledge Production and National Competitiveness. Foresight and STI Governance, 10(1), pp. 31-42. doi:

Schutz, F., Heidingsfelder, M.L., & Schraudner, M. (2019). Co-shaping the Future in Quadruple Helix Innovation Systems: Uncovering Public Preferences toward Participatory. Research and Innovation. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 5(2), pp. 128-146. doi:

Kravchenko, S.I., & Zanizdra, M.Yu. (2019). Typology of basic supranational innovation systems. Econ. promisl., 1(85), pp. 5-29 [in Russian]. doi:

Global Innovation Index (2019). INSEAD, WIPO [online]. Retrieved from

GCI Report (2019). World Economic Forum. [online]. Retrieved from

Human Development Index (2018). United Nations Development Programme [online]. Retrieved from

Kravchenko, S. (2018). Ukraine’s National Innovative System in the Context of the “Quadruple Helix” Mode. Modern Economics, 12, pp. 112-119. doi:

IMF country information (2019). International Monetary Fund. Retrieved from

These Are the World’s Most Innovative Countries (2019). Bloomberg. Retrieved from

Report for Selected Countries and Subjects (2018). International Monetary Fund. Retrieved from

IMF: Poland is in the lead in economic growth. Blockchain and startups. (2019). Retrieved from



  • There are currently no refbacks.