Abstract

The aim of this study. The aim of this study is to find, which source of competitiveness is more important in European Union nowadays. The results of the analysis. The article attempts to evaluate the sources of the EU competitiveness. This paper is organized as follows: there is a short literature review in the first part (how GDP growth is connected with competitiveness, how competitiveness is defined and how it can be measured). Basing on those acknowledgements, the hypothesis about the contribution of two “pillars” of competitiveness – the innovations and general economic conditions was state. In the third part, an econometric test of this hypothesis was conducted, and finally the outcomes and limitations of this study were discussed in the conclusions. The central hypothesis of this study is that there are two main sources of competitiveness represented by the cost competitiveness and innovation (value added) competitiveness, with the latter being more important for the EU than the former. Competitiveness was defined as an ability to attract foreign investments and therefore to contribute to the GDP growth. Two approaches to competitiveness measurement were approved: general economic conditions approach and innovation approach. General economic conditions approach emphasizes ordinary economic variables such as price indicators, GDP growth and infrastructure. Innovation approach is trying to measure “softer” aspects of competition – science, willing to innovate and to create high value added products. Thus, the competitiveness was measured by two different ways that was aimed to avoid multicolinearity of the model. As a result both approaches yield totally different results. In general economic conditions approach of the winner is typical for Eastern Europe with low prices and high growth prospects. Innovation approach yields much better results for western and especially northern Europe. Conclusions and directions of further researches. This study was not successful in a sense of answering the question about importance of different aspects of competiveness in the EU. Weak dataset does not allow making strong conclusions. Collecting more data will be necessary for precise conclusions and further research. If there was a longer panel – for at least 10 years – available to the authors, it is very possible, that results would be better and would enable us to come to more solid conclusions. Nevertheless, it becomes apparent that general economic conditions approach that entitles the development of ordinary economic variables, such as price indicators, GDP growth or infrastructure, might have larger impact on competitiveness in the EU that the support of science, willingness to innovate and creation of higher value-added products. These results might be regarded by the EU institutions willing to support innovations and economic growth within the European Union.

Keywords: innovations, competitiveness, value added, investment, product, European Union

JEL Classification: B52, O3, R11, R58.

Cite as: Machnáček, V., Strielkowski, W., Shishkin A. & Bilan, Yu. (2015). Determinants of innovations and competitiveness in the European Union . Marketing and Management of Innovations, 4, 224-232. https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2015.4-19

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

References

1. Antonioli, D., Bianchi, A., Mazzanti, M., Montresor, S., & Pini, P. (2013). Innovation Strategies and Economic Crisis: Evidence from Firm-level Italian Data. Economia politica, 30(1), 33-68 [in English].
2. Barrell, R., & Pain, N. (1997). Foreign Direct Investment, technological change, and economic growth within Europe. The Economic Journal, 107(445), 1770-1780 [in English].
3. Belás, J., Bilan, Y., Demjan, V., & Sipko, J. (2015). Entrepreneurship in sme segment: Case study from the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Amfiteatru Economic, 17 (38), 308-326 [in English].
4. Bernat, T., Gasior, A., Korpysa, J., Lakomy-Zinowik, M., Nagaj, R., & Szkudlarek, P. (2014) Perception of the risk of starting up business and personal attitude to risk. Transformations in business & economics, Vol: 13, Issue: 2B, 780-800 [in English].
5. Borensztein, E., Gregorio, J. De, & Lee, J. (1998). How does foreign direct investment affect economic growth? Journal of international Economics, 45, 115-135 [in English].
6. Carkovic, M., & Levine, R. (2002). Does foreign direct investment accelerate economic growth? U of Minnesota Department of Finance Working Paper. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=314924 [in English].
7. Clowes, D., & Bilan, Y. (2014). Tracking income per head in central-southern Europe Country responses to the global downturn (2008-2012). Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research, 48(2), 257-270 [in English].
8. Gazda, J. (2010). Real Business Cycle Theory – Methodology and Tools. Economics and Sociology, Vol. 3, 1, 42-48 [in English].
9. Fagerberg, J. (1988). International competitiveness. The economic journal, 98(391), 355-374 [in English].
10. Hansen, H., & Rand, J. (2006). On the causal links between FDI and growth in developing countries. The World Economy, 29(1), 21-41 [in English].
11. Haskel, J.E., Pereira, S.C., & Slaughter, M.J. (2007). Does inward foreign direct investment boost the productivity of domestic firms? The Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(3), 482-496 [in English].
12. Ioannidis, E., & Schreyer, P. (1997). Technology and non-technology determinants of export share growth. OECD Economic Studies, 28. Retrieved from http://78.41.128.130/dataoecd/22/49/2733930.pdf [in English].
13. Kharlamova, G., & Vertelieva, O. (2013). The International Competitiveness of Countries: Economic-Mathematical Approach. Economics and Sociology, Vol. 6, 2, 39-52. DOI: 10.14254/2071-789X.2013/6-2/4 [in English].
14. Mitchell, M. (2013). Economic Freedom and Economic Privilege. 2013 Index of Economic Freedom Book. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org/index/book/chapter-4 [in English].
15. OECD. (2013). Competitiveness (in international trade). Retrieved December 26, 2013, from http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=399 [in English].
16. Pammolli, F. (2014). On Innovation, Instability, and Growth. A Review and an Interpretative Framework. Economia politica, 31(1), 17-32 [in English].
17. Porter, M. (1993). The competitive advantage of nations. www.afi.es. Retrieved from http://www.afi.es/eo/The competitive advantage of nations (Porter HBR marzo-abril 1990).pdf [in English].
18. Salvatore, D. (2009). Globalization and International Competitiveness in the G-7 Countries. Economia politica, 26(1), 121-134 [in English].
19. Tusińska, M. (2014). The bumpy road to a competitive economy – economic governance in the European Union. Journal of International Studies, Vol. 7, 3, 32-43. DOI: 10.14254/2071-8330.2014/7-3/3 [in English].
20. Solow, R. (1956). A contribution to the theory of economic growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70(1), 65-94. Retrieved from http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/70/1/65.short [in English].
21. World Bank. (2012). Doing Business 2013. World Bank. DOI:10.1596/978-0-8213-9615-5 [in English].