Analysis of state instruments for stimulating innovative technologies in the context of global digitalization

Yuliia O. Mazur


The use of innovative technologies implies, on the part of an enterprise, the development of scientific and design strategies for updating manufacturing processes of products, and, on the part of the state, effective tools to stimulate the innovative activity of business entities. Tax incentives lead to a shortfall in public revenues or resources that could be used in other forms of government support. To assess the effectiveness of their use, an analysis of the amount of expenses for their provision and incomes that are received from their use was carried out. For this, the place of innovations in enterprises’ economic activities and their impact on the economy in the context of global digitalization is considered.

Directions of innovations’ implementation and their significance in the real sector of the economy are defined. In many countries of the world strategic programs for the development of enterprises’ innovative activities are being developed and improved. Their analysis has shown the relevance of the latter in the context of the implementation of the up-to-date digital technologies. Problems, faced by countries with lower than middle gross income (Ukraine are among them), are outlined. On the basis of peculiarities of state instruments, directed on stimulation of the enterprises’ innovative activity, the expediency of using various types of support for the development of innovative technologies is substantiated – not only from the state, but also from research institutions and enterprises themselves. This can be facilitated by the state through the utilization of appropriate regulatory instruments (budgetary, fiscal, etc.).

The analysis of tax incentives effectiveness for innovative activity in advanced countries is carried out. Considered are modern analytical tools for assessing tax incentives for enterprises. The efficiency of tax incentives for their innovative activity in the context of global digitalization has been defined. Possible directions of using state instruments to stimulate innovative technologies in Ukraine have been substantiated. The main requirement for tax incentives for national innovations should be the pursuit by a business entity of activities, aimed at achieving scientific and technological progress in conditions of scientific or technological uncertainty. Tax incentives should be available to innovative enterprises, regardless of their geographic location and size within the state. They should allow the deduction of a part of qualified expenses from the amount of corporate income tax of innovative enterprises. They must be provided on a non-refundable basis within a statutory period of time. They should be designed to minimize the potential for corruption in the provision of incentives and abuse by taxpayers in their use. The government's assessment of expected costs and benefits from fiscal stimulation of innovative activities of Ukrainian enterprises should be similar to the assessment of other types of tax expenses, taking into account the institutional features of the national economic development.


state incentive instruments, innovative technologies, enterprises, innovation activity, tax incentives

Full Text:



Bazhal, Y.M., Boyko, O.M, Bulkin, I.O., & etc. (2015). Innovative Ukraine 2020: national report. In V.M. Heitz, A.I. Danylenkо, Е.М. Libanova, and etc. (Eds.). NAS of Ukraine. Kyiv: Express [in Ukrainian].

Vyshnevsky, V.P., Vietskaya, O.V., Vietskyi, O.A., & etc. (2019). Smart-industry: directions of formation, problems and solutions: monograph. In V.P. Vyshnevsky (Ed.). NAS of Ukraine, Institute of Industrial Economics. Kyiv: IIE of NAS of Ukraine [in Ukrainian].

Vyshnevsky, V.P., Zbarazska, L.O., Zanizdra, M.Yu., & etc. (2016). National model of neo-industrial development of Ukraine: monograph. In V.P. Vyshnevsky (Ed.). NAS of Ukraine, Institute of Industrial Economics. Kyiv: IIE of NAS of Ukraine. URL: [in Ukrainian].

Heyets, V.M. (2020). The phenomenon of instability is a challenge to economic development: monograph. Kyiv: PH «Academperiodika». doi: [in Ukrainian].

Hrytsenko, A.A., Bilorus, O.H., Artyomova, T.I., & etc. (2018). Reproductive dynamics of economic systems: institutions and activities: monograph. In A.A. Hrytsenko (Ed.). NAS of Ukraine, SI « Institute of Economics and Forecasting of NAS of Ukraine». Kyiv: SI «Institute of Economics and Forecasting of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine». URL: [in Ukrainian].

Danylenko, A.I. (2017). The main problems of innovation restructuring and financial aspects of its provision in Ukraine. Finance of Ukraine, 5, pp. 7-23 [in Ukrainian].

State Statistics Service of Ukraine (2020). URL: [in Ukrainian].

Iefymenko, T.I. (2020). Financial management transformations and sustainable development of the national economy. Ekon. Ukr., 7, pp. 5-13. doi: [in Ukrainian].

Lunina, I.O., Bilousova, O.S., & Bulana, O.O. (2016). Budget and tax incentives for innovation in Ukraine. Economics and forecasting, 1, pp. 41-56 [in Ukrainian].

Mazur, Yu.O. (2015). Tax incentives for R&D in world practice and stimulation of innovation in Ukraine. Econ. promysl., 3(71), pp. 5-20 [in Russian].

Mazur, Yu.O. (2017). Tax incentives for R&D in emerging economy conditions: direction of reforms for Ukraine. Econ. promysl., 2(78), pp. 61-79. doi: [in Russian].

Pysarenko, T.V, Kvasha, T.K, Rozhkova, L.V., & etc. (2019). The state of innovation and technology transfer activities in Ukraine in 2018: analytical reference. Kyiv: Ukr INTEI. URL: [in Ukrainian].

Salikhova, O.B., & Shelud`ko, N.M. (2020). Institutional and financial mechanisms to stimulate technology innovation in industry: the experience of France, lessons for Ukraine. Econ. promysl., 2(90), pp. 5-26. doi: [in Ukrainian].

Andres, R., DeStefano, T., Niebe, T., & Viete, S. (2020). Capital incentive policies in the age of cloud computing: an empirical case study. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers. 7. doi:

Appelt, S., Galindo-Rueda, F., & González Cabral, A.C. (2019). Measuring R&D tax support: findings from the new OECD R&D tax incentives database. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers. 6. doi:

Bag, S., Telukdarie, A., Pretorius, J.H.C., & Gupta, S. (2018). Industry 4.0 and supply chain sustainability: framework and future research directions. An International Journal. December. doi:

Benias, N., Markopoulos, A.P. A review on the readiness level and cyber-security challenges in Industry 4.0. 2017 South Eastern European Design Automation, Computer Engineering, Computer Networks and Social Media Conference (SEEDA-CECNSM). (pp. 76-80). Kasto-ria. doi:

Bunn, D., Assen, E., & Enache, Cr. (2020). Digital Taxation Around the World. Tax Foundation. Washingtion. URL:

Dutta, S., Lanvin, B., & Wunsch-Vincent, S. (2016). The Global Innovation Index 2016. Winning with Global Innovation. In S. Dutta, B. Lanvin, S. Wunsch-Vincent (Eds.). Cornell University, INSEAD, WIPO. URL:

Dutta, S., Lanvin, B., & Wunsch-Vincent, S. (2019). The Global Innovation Index 2019. Creating Healthy Lives - The Future of Medical Innovation. In S. Dutta, B. Lanvin, S. Wunsch-Vincent. Cornell University, INSEAD, WIPO. URL:

EUACI (2020). The results of the survey of entrepreneurs, experts and the population «Corruption in Ukraine: 2020: understanding of perception, prevalence». EU Аnti-Сorruption Іnitiative in Ukraine. URL: [in Ukrainian].

Europian Chamber (2017). China Manufacturing 2025. Putting Industrial Policy Ahead of Market Forces. Europian Union Chamber of Commerce in Chine. URL:

Executive Yuan’s Office of Science and Technology (2015). Taiwan Productivity 4.0. Initiative, 2015. URL:

Gorsuch, J., & Link, A.N. (2018). Nanotechnology: A call for policy research. Annals of Science and Technology Policy, 2 (4), pp. 307-463. doi:

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: 2016.06.015

Helmrich, K. (2019). Future technologies that will drive Industry 4.0. WEF. URL:

Liao, Y., Deschamps, F., Loures, E.D.F.R., & Ramos, L.F.P. (2017). Past, present and future of Industry 4.0 - a systematic literature review and research agenda proposal. International Journal of Production Research, 55(12), pp. 3609-3629. doi:

Lin, K.Ch., Shue, J.Z., & Ding, K. (2017). A cross-strait comparison of innovation policy under Industry 4.0 and sustainability development transition. Sustainability. 9 (5), pp. 786. doi:

Link, A.N., & van Hasselt, M. (2019). Exploring the impact of R&D on patenting activity in small women-owned and minority-owned entrepreneurial firms. Small Business Economics, 119, pp. 1061-1066. doi:

Mosey, S., Guerrero, M., & Greenman, A. (2017). Technology entrepreneurship research opportunities: insights from across Europe. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42 (1), pp. 1-9. doi:

NSTC (2018). Strategy for American Leadership in Advanced Leadership in Advanced Manufacturing: A Report by the Subcommittee on Advanced Manufacturing Committee on Technology of the National Science & Technology Council. Washington. 40 p. URL:

OECD (2018). Tax and digitalization. OECD Going Digital Policy Note. Paris. URL:

OECD (2020). Research and Development Statistics (RDS). URL:

OECD (2020а). Measuring Tax Support for R&D and Innovation: Indicators. URL:

OECD (2020b). Reports on the Pillar One and Pillar Two Blueprints. 12 October - 14 December 2020: Public Consultation Document. OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS. URL:

OECD.Stat (2020). Main Science and Technology Indicators. URL:

Siemieniuch, C.E., & Sinclair, M.A. (2015). Global drivers, sustainable manufactu-ring and systems ergonomics. Applied Ergonomics, 51, pp. 104-119. doi:

STPI (2010). White Papers on Advanced Manufacturing Questions. DRAFT Working Papers Version 040510. Washington: Science and Technology Policy Institute. URL:

Sung, T.K. (2018). Industry 4.0: a Korea perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 132, July, pp. 40-45. doi:

Transparency International (2020). Corrupti-on Perceptions Index 2019. URL:[WEB].pdf

Urbano, D., Guerrero, M., Ferreira, J.J., & Fernandes, C.I. (2018). New technology entrepreneurship initiatives: Which strategic orientations and environmental conditions matter in the new socio-economic landscape? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44 (5), pp. 1577-1602. doi:



  • There are currently no refbacks.