DIRECTIONS OF ENSURING HIGH EFFICIENCY OF THE ECOSYSTEM AND DYNAMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE NATIONAL ECONOMY
Abstract
The article is devoted to a comprehensive analysis of the system-forming elements of the development of the national economic ecosystem, within which the interaction and coherence of processes at the micro-, meso- and macro-levels play a key role. It is shown that achieving high results of socio-economic development is possible only under the conditions of a consistent state policy focused on supporting innovative activity, accelerating digital transformation, forming highly qualified human capital, as well as strengthening the institutional environment and mechanisms of public administration.
The conceptual principles of interpreting the national economy as an open multi-level ecosystem are revealed, where the interaction between entities at different levels is determined by the quality of the institutional, resource and information environment. Particular attention is paid to the meso-level as a space in which clusters, regional networks and industry interactions are formed, ensuring the circulation of knowledge, technologies and resources. It is the meso-ecosystem that acts as a mechanism for leveling imbalances between local and national processes, strengthening the competitiveness of regions and creating conditions for scaling innovations. The effectiveness of the meso-ecosystem depends on the ability of actors to transform network alliances into more stable integration structures, which is critical for the steady production of innovations in the form of patents.
Much attention is paid to the micro-level of the economic ecosystem, which forms the foundation of organizational stability and determines the ability of an enterprise to function effectively in conditions of dynamic change. The importance of macroeconomic stability as a basic regulatory component is emphasized, which increases the predictability of economic decisions, builds investor confidence and minimizes systemic risks for the financial sector. It is revealed that foreign economic integration and expanded participation in global networks create opportunities for the country to scale domestic business, access to the latest technologies, attract investments and deepen international knowledge exchange.
It is proven that it is the combination of these areas that forms the strategic basis of the economic ecosystem, determines its competitiveness, adaptability and ability to long-term sustainable development.
Downloads
References
Galchynskyi, A. S. (2017). Teoriya groshej. Osnovi. (in Ukrainian)
Heyets, V. M. (2020). Modernizaciya ekonomiki ta napryamki strukturnih reform. NAN Ukrayini. (in Ukrainian)
Dimchenko, O. V., Rudachenko, O. O., & Chernih, M. I. (2023). Stan ta tendenciyi rozvitku startap-ekosistem mist Ukrayini. Internauka. Ekonomichni nauki, (4). https://doi.org/10.25313/2520-2294-2023-4-8761 (in Ukrainian)
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. Free Press. (Republished with a new introduction, 1998)
Smachilo, V. V., Dimchenko, O. V., Rudachenko, O. O., & Chernih, M. I. (2023). Stan ta tendenciyi rozvitku startap-ekosistem mist Ukrayini. Internauka. Ekonomichni nauki, (4). https://doi.org/10.25313/2520-2294-2023-4-8761 (in Ukrainian)
Mazaraki, A. A., Melnik, T. M., Yuhimenko, V. V., et al. (2014). Strategiya postkrizovogo rozvitku zovnishnoekonomichnogo sektora Ukrayini (A. A. Mazaraki, Ed.). Kiyiv. nac. torg.-ekon. un-t. (in Ukrainian)
Teshеva, L. V. (2021). Risk assessment in the formation of a portfolio of innovative development projects of agricultural enterprises. Actual problems of innovative economy and law, (1), 19-23. (in Ukrainian)
Alberti, C., Civera, A., & Lehmann, E., et al. (2025). University sustainability rankings: A critical literature review on the UI GreenMetric ranking system. Journal of Technology Transfer, 50, 2752–2801. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-025-10223-9
Bradford, A. (2024). The false choice between digital regulation and innovation. Northwestern University Law Review, 118(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4753107
Fauzi, M. A., Muhamad Tamyez, P. F., & Kumar, S. (2022). Social entrepreneurship and social innovation in ASEAN: Past, present, and future trends. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2022.2143870
Jacobides, M. G. (2022). How to compete when industries digitize and collide: An ecosystem development framework. California Management Review, 64(3), 99–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/00081256221083352
McMullen, J. S., & Shepherd, D. A. (2006). Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review, 31(1). https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.19379628
Liu, J., Zhao, M., & Wang, K. (2025). Professional connections and digital innovation of SMEs. Journal of Technology Transfer, 50, 2896–2927. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-025-10201-1
Stine, L., Rosenstand, S., & Foss, C. A. (2019). Investigating disruption: A literature review of core concepts of disruptive innovation theory (1st ed.). Aalborg University Press. https://savearchive.zbw.eu/handle/11159/3118
Lundvall, B.-Å. (2010). User-producer relationships, national systems of innovation and internationalisation. In National systems of innovation: Toward a theory of innovation and interactive learning (pp. 47–70). https://doi.org/10.7135/UPO9781843318903.004
McCarthy, K., Aalbers, R., & Kearney, C. (2025). Organising for innovation: Alliance-to-acquisition transitions and patent production. Journal of Technology Transfer, 50, 2837–2866. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-025-10199-6
Włodarczyk, M., & Wisla, R. (2025). The digital economy and the productivity paradox. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003662181
Moore, J. (1996). The death of competition: Leadership and strategy in the age of business ecosystems. HarperBusiness.
North, D. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808678
Ramdani, B., Raja, S., & Kayumova, M. (2022). Digital innovation in SMEs: A systematic review, synthesis and research agenda. Information Technology for Development, 28(1), 56–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2021.1893148
Rieviezzo, A., Mason, M. C., Zamparo, G., et al. (2025). The university at the heart of the city: Developing a new scale to assess the community impact of university activities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 50, 2928–2965. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-025-10197-8
Schumpeter, J. (1942/2008). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203202050
Tansley, A. (1935). The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. Ecology, 16(3), 284–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133307083297
Vaillant, Y., & Lafuente, E. (2025). Higher education institutions as co-innovation partners: Compensating, complementing, and facilitating firms’ co-innovation to their optimum possibility frontier. Journal of Technology Transfer, 50, 2725–2751. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-025-10196-9
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
