Innovation and investment potential of region as a factor of its "smart transformation" – a case study of Kharkiv region (Ukraine)
Abstract
Formulation of the problem. Kharkiv region has recently been increasingly positioned as a "smart region" and Kharkiv as a "smart city". Moreover, the emergence of "smart economy" and the availability of people with jobs is one of the strategic objectives for the city development by 2020. The formation of Kharkiv region as an "intelligent region" with "smart economy" implies, among other objectives, a comprehensive development of innovation and investment activities in the region, its transformation into a Ukraine's leading innovation and investment center. A mandatory condition of the region’s progressive socio-economic development is the economy of innovation type, which is impossible without investment.
The purpose of the article is to analyze the innovation and investment potential of Kharkiv region as a factor of its smart transformation, to identify the features of its formation and use in the aspect of the formation of Kharkiv region as a "smart-region".
Results. In this paper positioning of Kharkiv region and the city of Kharkiv as a smart region has been defined. The key goals and objectives of development towards a "smart economy", as well as basic factors of becoming "intelligent (smart) economy" are given. The authors analyze innovation and investment potential of Kharkiv region as a factor of its smart transformation; reveal the features of its formation and use in terms of Kharkiv region’s formation as a "smart-region".
The place of Kharkiv region in the national dimension was determined according to individual indicators of innovation and investment activity and, in general, according to the innovation and investment potential with the help of the mathematical and statistical analysis. In particular, it is noted that Kharkiv region occupies the 2nd place in Ukraine in terms of the integral indicator of the formation and use of innovation and investment potential yielding only to Kyiv. According to the results of factor analysis, the factors of formation and use of innovation and investment potential of the Kharkiv region (socio-economic, resettlement, housing and trade and socio-demographic), their content (factor loadings) and intraregional peculiarities of influence (factor scales) were substantiated. Using a cluster analysis (Ward’s method, Euclidean distance), grouping of cities and districts of Kharkiv region was conducted based on the similarity of their innovation and investment activities (4 groups of cities and 5 groups of districts were identified). The results of cluster analysis made it possible to conclude that Kharkiv region is characterized by considerable territorial differentiation of the peculiarities of the formation and use of the innovation and investment potential of its administrative and territorial units, which is primarily due to the specifics of their socio-economic development. The undisputed leaders are the city of Kharkiv and Kharkivsky and Dergachivsky counties, which are characterized by the highest investment attractiveness and innovative activity, and in general, the largest innovation and investment po-tential.
Thus, clustering allowed defining the features of innovation and investment potential in territorial distribution of the region, identifing problems and outline prospects for further use of the region’s available resources.
Downloads
References
Bureeva, N. N. (2007). Multivariate statistical analysis using «STATISTICA», Nizhny Novgorod, 112. [in Russian]
Danylyshyn, B. M., Koretsky, M. Kh., Datsiy, O. I. (2006): Investment Policy in Ukraine, Donetsk, 292. [in Ukraini-an]
Zhavzharova, T. (2016). How Smart Kharkiv attracts tourists and investors Delo.ua, 21th of October. Https://delo.ua/ukraine/kak-smart-harkov-privlekaet-turistov-i-investorov-324084/ [in Russian]
Niemets, L., Sehida, K. (Eds) (2017). The innovative-investment potential as the regional competitiveness base (a case study of Kharkiv region). Kharkiv, V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, 520. [in Ukrainian]
Mezentsev, K. V. (2004). Regional forecasting of social and economic development, Kyiv, Kyiv University, 82. [in Ukrainian]
Cities and districts of Kharkiv region in 2015: Statistical Yearbook (2016). Kharkiv, Department of Statistics in the Kharkiv region, 334. [in Ukrainian]
Paton, B. E. (ed.) (2012). National Paradigm of Sustainable Development of Ukraine, Kyiv, State Institution «Insti-tute of Environmental Economics and Sustainable Development of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine», 72. [in Ukrainian]
Niemets, L. M. et al. (2009). Medical industry of Kharkiv region: territorial characteristics, problems and ways to improve (social and geographic aspects), Kyiv, Fourth Wave, 224. [in Ukrainian]
Development strategies of Kharkiv untill 2020 (2016). Kharkiv. Avaable at: http://www.city.kharkov.ua/assets/files/docs/zakon/strategy2411.pdf [in Ukrainian]
Fedotova, Yu. V. (2015). Theoretical basis of implementing the principles of smart economy by creating high-tech clusters, Global and national economic problems, 4, 31-35. [in Ukrainian]
Kharkiv region in 2015: (Statistical Yearbook (2016). Kharkiv: Department of Statistics in the Kharkov region, Kharkiv, 534. [in Ukrainian]
Benedek, J. (2004). Amenajarea teritoriului şi dezvoltare regională, Presa Universitară Clujeană, Cluj-Napoca.
Benneworth, P., Hospers, G-J. (2007). The new economic geography of old industrial regions: universities as glob-al-local pipeline, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 25 (6), 779–802.
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245-276.
Cocean, P. (2005). Geografie regională, Presa Universitară Clujeană, Cluj-Napoca.
Grice, J. W. (2001). Computing and evaluating factor scores. Psychological Methods, 6, 430-450.
Hollands, Robert G. (2008). Will the real smart city please stand up? Intelligent, progressive or entrepreneurial? City, 12:3, 303-320.
Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179-185.
Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computer to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141-151.
Kaivo-Oja, J., Vähäsantanen, S., Karppinen, A., Haukioja, T. (2017). Smart specialization strategy and its opera-tionalization in the regional policy: case Finland, Business, Management and Education, 15 (1), 28-41.
Krueger, R., Gibbs, D. (2008). «Third wave» sustainability? Smart growth and regional development in the USA, Regional Studies, 42, 9, 1263-1274.
Kylili, A., Fokaides, P.A. (2015, July). European smart cities: The role of zero energy buildings, Sustainable Cities and Society, 15, 86-95.
Niemets, L., Sehida, K., Husieva, N. (2015). Demographic potential as the basis for social and economic develop-ment, Economic Journal – XXI, Kyiv, 3-4 (1), 93-95.
Pastor, Dena A. (2010). Cluster Analysis. In: The Reviewer’s Guide to Quantitative Methods in the Social Sciences. Gregory R. Hancock, Ralph O. Mueller (eds.). Routledge, 41-54.
Rodríguez-Pose, A., Crescenzi, R. (2008). Research and development, spillovers, innovation systems, and the gene-sis of regional growth in Europe, Regional studies, 42 (1), 51-67.
Quatraro, F. (2009). The Diffusion of Regional Innovation Capabilities: Evidence from Italian Patent Data, Re-gional Studies, 43, 1333-1348.
Ström, P., Nelson, R. (2010). Dynamic regional competitiveness in the creative economy: can peripheral communi-ties have a place? The Service Industry Journal, 30 (4), 497-511.
Yeung, H. W.-C. (2009). Regional Development and the Competitive Dynamic production Network: An East Asia Perspctive, Regional Studies, 43 (3), 325-351.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
