Factors Influencing the Level of Regional Innovation — Qualitative Comparative Analysis

Anna Krakowiak-Bal; Urszula Ziemiańczyk

doi:10.56583/br.397

Published : 2018-02-16

Vol. 15 No. 4 (2017)

Factors Influencing the Level of Regional Innovation — Qualitative Comparative Analysis

Anna Krakowiak-Bal

Urszula Ziemiańczyk

DOI: https://doi.org/10.56583/br.397

Abstract

Innovation is a highly complicated and ambiguous phenomenon. It is also a key element of the competitiveness of companies, regions and nations. The aim of this study is to identify the conditions that most affect regional innovation. This research combines a group of indicators that define some tangible factors of regional development with level of innovation performance. The pathways to facilitate a region’s higher innovativeness are presented. For this purpose, fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis is adopted. The analysis was performed for two different groups of regions: Innovative Leaders and Modest Innovators (according to the Regional Innovation Scoreboard). The main findings indicate that there is no single condition that improves innovative performance. It is always a combination of several variables. Having higher GDP, increasing employment in science and technology sectors, improving internet access and taking care of higher education of the population, regional innovativeness will grow. Social conditions such as inhabitants’ age do not show significant impact on regional innovation compared with other factors.

Keywords:

regional innovation, qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA), modest innovators, innovation leaders

Details

References

Statistics

Authors

Download files

PDF

Citation rules

Krakowiak-Bal, A., & Ziemiańczyk, U. (2018). Factors Influencing the Level of Regional Innovation — Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Regional Barometer. Analyses & Prognoses, 15(4), 7–14. https://doi.org/10.56583/br.397

Altmetric indicators

Cited by / Share

Licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

References

Antonelli, C., P.P. Patrucco, and F. Quatraro. 2011. “Productivity Growth and Pecuniary Knowledge Externalities: An Empirical Analysis of Agglomeration Economies in European Regions.” Economic Geography 87 (1): 23–50. doi: 10.1111/j.19440-8287.2010.01104.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-8287.2010.01104.x

Asheim, B.T., and M.S. Gertler. 2005. “The Geography of Innovation: Regional Innovation Systems.” In The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, edited by J. Fagerberg, D.C. Mowery and R.R. Nelson, 291–317. Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199286805.003.0011

Autio, E., M. Kenney, P. Mustar, D. Siegel, and M. Wright. 2014. “Entrepreneurial Innovation: The Importance of Context.” Research Policy 43 (7): 1097–1108. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2014.01.015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.01.015

Azar, G., and F. Ciabuschi. 2017. “Organizational Innovation, Technological Innovation, and Export Performance: The Effects of Innovation Radicalness and Extensiveness.” International Business Review 26 (2): 324–336. doi: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2016.09.002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2016.09.002

Camagni, R., and R. Capello. 2013. “Regional Competitiveness and Territorial Capital: A Conceptual Approach and Empirical Evidence from the European Union.” Regional Studies 47 (9): 1383–1402. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2012.681640. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2012.681640

Carayannis, E.G., Y. Goletsis, and E. Grigoroudis. 2017. “Composite Innovation Metrics: MCDA and the Quadruple Innovation Helix Framework (in press, corrected proof).” Technological Forecasting and Social Change. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.008

Ciocanel, A.B., and F.M. Pavelescu. 2015. “Innovation and Competitiveness in European Context.” Emerging Markets Queries in Finance and Business 2014, Emqfb 2014 32: 728–737. doi: 10.1016/S2212-5671(15)01455-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)01455-0

Collier, D. 1993. “The Comparative Method.” In Political Science. The State of the Discipline II, edited by A.W. Finifter, 105–120. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.

Cooke, P. 2004. “Competitiveness as Cohesion: Social Capital and the Knowledge Economy.” In City Matters. Competitiveness, Cohesion, and Urban Governance, edited by M. Boddy and M. Parkinson. Bristol: Policy Pess. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46692/9781847425911.010

Cooke, P., B. Asheim, R. Boschma, R. Martin, D. Schwartz, and F. Tödtling. eds. 2011. Handbook of Regional Innovation and Growth. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9780857931504

Damanpour, F. 1996. “Organizational Complexity and Innovation: Developing and Testing Multiple Contingency Models.” Management Science 42 (5): 693–716. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.42.5.693. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.42.5.693

Damanpour, F., and D. Aravind. 2012. “Managerial Innovation: Conceptions, Processes, and Antecedents.” Management and Organization Review 8 (2): 423–454. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8784.2011.00233.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2011.00233.x

Doloreux, D. 2002. “What We Should Know about Regional Systems of Innovation.” Technology in Society 24 (3): 243–263. doi: 10.1016/S0160-791X(02)00007-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-791X(02)00007-6

Federico, G., G. Langus, and T. Valletti. 2017. “A Simple Model of Mergers and Innovation.” Economics Letters 157: 136–140. doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2017.06.014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2017.06.014

Ferreira, P.J.S., and A.T.M. Dionisio. 2016. “What Are the Conditions for Good Innovation Results? A Fuzzy-Set Approach for European Union.” Journal of Business Research 69 (11): 5396–5400. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.144. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.144

Fiss, P.C. 2011. “Building Better Causal Theories: a Fuzzy Set Approach to Typologies in Organization Research.” Academy of Management Journal 54 (2): 393–420. doi: 10.5465/Amj.2011.60263120. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.60263120

Foddi, M., and S. Usai. 2012. “Regional Innovation Performance in Europe.” CRENoS Working Papers (2012/21): 1–36.

Grupp, H., and M.E. Mogee. 2004. “Indicators for National Science and Technology Policy. How Robust Are Composite Indicators?” Research Policy 33 (9): 1373–1384. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2004.09.007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.09.007

Krakowiak-Bal, A., P. Burg, U. Ziemiańczyk, P. Trávníček, P. Junga, and T. Vítěz. 2016. “Innovativeness. Does the Territorial Typology Matters?” Infrastruktura i Ekologia Terenów Wiejskich 4 (4): 1937–1945.

Mas-Verdu, F., D. Ortiz-Miranda, and J.M. Garcia-Alvarez-Coque. 2016. “Examining Organizational Innovations in Different Regional Settings.” Journal of Business Research 69 (11): 5324–5329. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.132. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.132

Misangyi, V.F., and A.G. Acharya. 2014. “Substitutes or Complements? A Configurational Examination of Corporate Governance Mechanisms.” Academy of Management Journal 57 (6): 1681–1705. doi: 10.5465/amj.2012.0728. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0728

Ragin, C.C. 2000. Fuzzy-Set Social Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ragin, C.C. ed. 2008. Redesigning Social Inquiry. Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ragin, C.C., and P. Fiss. 2008. “Net Effects versus Configurations: an Empirical Demonstration.” In Redesigning Social Inquiry. Fuzzy Sets and Beyond, edited by C.C. Ragin, 190–212. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226702797.001.0001

Rihoux, B., P. Alamos-Concha, D. Bol, A. Marx, and I. Rezsohazy. 2013. “From Niche to Mainstream Method? A Comprehensive Mapping of QCA Applications in Journal Articles from 1984 to 2011.” Political Research Quarterly 66 (1): 175–184. doi: 10.1177/1065912912468269c. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912912468269

Roig-Tierno, N., J. Alcazar, and S. Ribeiro-Navarrete. 2015. “Use of Infrastructures to Support Innovative Entrepreneurship and Business Growth.” Journal of Business Research 68 (11): 2290–2294. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.06.013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.06.013

Schneider, M.R., C. Schulze-Bentrop, and M. Paunescu. 2010. “Mapping the Institutional Capital of High-Tech Firms: a Fuzzy-Set Analysis of Capitalist Variety and Export Performance.” Journal of International Business Studies 41 (2): 246–266. doi: 10.1057/jibs.2009.36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2009.36

Schumpeter, J.A. 1934. The Theory of Economic Development. An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. Translated by R. Opie, Harvard Economic Studies. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Shearmur, R., C. Carrincazeaux, and D. Doloreux. eds. 2016. Handbook on the Geographies of Innovation. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Pub. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784710774

Veugelers, R. 2009. “Innovation, Growth, and Structural Reforms: What Role for EU Policies?” In The New Economics of Technology Policy, edited by D. Foray, 315–326. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Woodside, A.G. 2013. “Moving beyond Multiple Regression Analysis to Algorithms: Calling for Adoption of a Paradigm Shift from Symmetric to Asymmetric Thinking in Data Analysis and Crafting Theory.” Journal of Business Research 66 (4): 463–472. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.12.021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.12.021

Zygmunt, A. 2014. “R&D Expenditures in Poland. Voivodship Perspective.” Barometr Regionalny. Analizy i Prognozy 12 (2): 13–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.56583/br.1048

Anna Krakowiak-Bal

br@akademiazamojska.edu.pl

Affiliation:

University of Agriculture in Krakow Poland

Urszula Ziemiańczyk

br@akademiazamojska.edu.pl

Affiliation:

University of Agriculture in Krakow Poland