MODERN FEATURES OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND LEGAL REGULATION OF INNOVATION ACTIVITIES OF ENTERPRISES IN TERMS OF ECONOMIC COMPETITION

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

  Serhii Nenko

  Kateryna Holovko

  Oleksandr Dzera

Abstract

The subject of the study are organizational and economic relations arising in the process of administrative and legal support of innovation activities of enterprises in terms of economic competition. Methodology. Instrumental and methodological apparatus of the study consists of the applied methods of economic analysis of organizations, statistical methods, sample observation, method of economic modeling, grouping, generalization, expert evaluations, methods of economic theory, marketing, etc. The aim of the article is to study modern features of administrative and legal regulation of innovative activity of enterprises in conditions of economic competition. The results of the study are to identify the typical principles of state innovation policy. The study of existing principles shows that they are largely based on administrative and legal methods of regulation, which is explained by the organizational and managerial focus of the principles of state innovation policy. Finally, the conclusion about the need to unify the principles of state innovation policy in relation to enterprises operating in a competitive environment is formulated. Conclusion. Analysis of the regulatory framework governing the innovative activities of enterprises has revealed a number of problems. The most important of them are: absence of unity in determining the fundamental concepts of the innovation sphere; lack of unity in determining the powers of executive authorities in the innovation sphere; inconsistency in the construction of executive authorities that regulate innovation activity; non-unity in determining the powers of the executive bodies of state power; legal and linguistic uncertainty in the formulation of the powers of the executive authorities; ambiguity of the range of issues on the adoption of normative legal acts regulating relations in the field of innovation; absence of unity in the definition of the object of state support; no uniformity in the interpretation of the concept of "state innovation policy" in the laws; vagueness and ambiguity in the definition of goals and objectives of state innovation policy; different interpretations of the concept of "state support to subjects of innovation activity"; unreasonable limitation of the range of recipients of state support; presence of excessive administrative barriers in obtaining state support. Based on the above, it can be concluded that the administrative-legal regulation in the field of innovation activities of enterprises in a competitive environment is in its formative stage and needs further improvement.

How to Cite

Nenko, S., Holovko, K., & Dzera, O. (2021). MODERN FEATURES OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND LEGAL REGULATION OF INNOVATION ACTIVITIES OF ENTERPRISES IN TERMS OF ECONOMIC COMPETITION. Baltic Journal of Economic Studies, 7(5), 144-152. https://doi.org/10.30525/2256-0742/2021-7-5-144-152
Article views: 265 | PDF Downloads: 143

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

Keywords

enterprises, innovation, innovative activity, administrative support, legal support, economic structures, competitiveness, administrative law

References

Androshhuk, G. O., & Davymuka, S. A. (2015). Intellectual Capital Migration: Impact on the Economy and Innovative Development. Regional economy, 2, 65–82.

Azoev, G. L. (2010). Competition: analysis, strategy and practice. Marketing in Russia and abroad, 4, 20–28.

Aghion, P., Bloom, N., Blundell, R., Griffith, R., & Howitt, P. (2005). Competition and innovation: An inverted-u relationship. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120 (2), 701–728.

Arrow, K. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In C. K. Rowley (Ed.), Readings in industrial economics. London: Palgrave, pp. 219–236.

Baregheh, A., Rowley, J., & Sambrook, S. (2009). Towards a multidisciplinary definition of innovation. Management Decision, 47 (8), 1323–1339.

Blikhar, M. M., Vatras, V., Melnychenko, B., Podra, O., & Anikina, G. (2020). Providing of innovative development of Ukraine: economic and legal aspects. Financial and Credit Activity: Problems of Theory and Practice, 2(33), 412–423. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18371/fcaptp.v2i33.207098

Blundell, R., Griffith, R., & Van Reenen, J. (1999). Market share, market value and innovation in a panel of British manufacturing firms. The Review of Economic Studies, 66 (3), 529–554.

Caiazza, R. (2015). Explaining innovation in mature industries: Evidences from Italian SMEs. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 27, 975–985.

Сastro, R., Clementi, G. L., & MacDonald, G. (2009). Legal Institutions, Sectoral Heterogeneity, and Economic Development. Review of Economic Studies, 76(2), 529–561.

Dasgupta, P., & Stiglitz, J. (1980). Industrial structure and the nature of innovative activity. The Economic Journal, 90 (358), 266–293.

Feld, L., & Foigt, S. (2003). Economic growth and judicial independence: Cross country evidence using a new set of indicators. CESifo Working Paper, 906. Munich: CESifo.

Fellner, W. (1951). The influence of market structure on technological progress. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 65 (4), 556–577.

Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating uni-dimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25 (2), 186–192.

Gilbert, R. (2006). Looking for Mr. Schumpeter. Where are We in the Competition-Innovation Debate? Innovation Policy and the Economy, 6, 159–215.

Hasan, I., & Tucci, C. L. (2010). The innovation-Economic growth nexus: Global evidence. Research Policy, 39 (10), 1264–1276.

Jansen, J., van Den Bosch, J., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52 (11), 1661–1674.

Martins, E., & Terblanche, F. (2003). Building organizational culture that stimulates creativity and innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 6(1), 64–74.

OECD (1996b), Technology, Productivity and Job Creation, Paris. 84 p.

Shevchuk, V. O., Blikhar, M. M., Komarnytska, I. I., & Tataryn, N. M. (2020). Rule of law and economic growth. Financial and Credit Activity: Problems of Theory and Practice, 1 (32), 278–289. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18371/fcaptp.v1i32.200522

Tkacheva, O. A., Osadchuk, L. M., Kapustina, I. V., Kobersy, I. S., & Litvinova, S. F. (2017). Importance of foreign trade in the economic development of Russian regions. International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research, 15(23), p403–412.

Tsai, W. (2016). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (5), 996–1004.

Verkhovnа Radа Ukrainy. (2002). The Law of Ukraine «On Innovation Activity» of July 4, 2002 (№ 40-IV). Bulletin of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, 36, 266.

Versteeg, M., & Ginsburg, T. (2017). Measuring the Rule of Law: A Comparison of Indicators. Law & Social Inquiry, 42(1), 100–137.