Mikhail A. Bek, Nadezda N. Bek, Marina Y. Sheresheva and Wesley J. Johnston
The purpose of this paper is to develop and test models explaining the unsatisfactory innovation activity of Russian firms and the main obstacles to innovation cluster development.
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to develop and test models explaining the unsatisfactory innovation activity of Russian firms and the main obstacles to innovation cluster development.
Design/methodology/approach
Based on statistical analysis and the results of a pilot survey of 192 local businessmen, followed by imitation modeling analysis, the study tests hypotheses regarding the impact of unsatisfactory institutional environments, including weak property rights protection, on innovation cluster development in Russia.
Findings
The analysis shows that the impact of adverse factors on innovation activities of cluster members is crucial, and estimates to what extent the negative factors' influence should be reduced to prevent cluster degradation processes.
Research limitations/implications
The models provide a number of sensitivity tests of the parameters; however, data from clusters with different levels of support and protection need to be obtained. Government experiments could be conducted to test the models and find ranges of optimal parameters for cluster development. Short of this, examination of actual data from different cluster in similar environments would allow estimated of optimal strategies for support. Longitudinal data can also help determine the actual cause and effect of successful innovation cluster development.
Practical implications
The paper provides managerial implications for organizations involved in innovation clusters, which can be used to improve cluster members' performance and collaborative innovation activities by means of creating acceptable institutional environments.
Originality/value
The paper provides evidence of the connection between collaborative activities of clustering organizations in Russia and their performance caused by expectations concerning institutional conditions on the macro level in Russia.
Details
Keywords
New leadership in Ingushetia.
Details
DOI: 10.1108/OXAN-DB245010
ISSN: 2633-304X
Keywords
Geographic
Topical
The paper investigates the utility of economic theory for post‐Communist economic transformation. It serves to explain the main reasons for market reform failure in different…
Abstract
Purpose
The paper investigates the utility of economic theory for post‐Communist economic transformation. It serves to explain the main reasons for market reform failure in different post‐Communist countries.
Design/methodology/approach
A literature review suggests that after the collapse of the Communist system there was no economic theory of transition to market. Whenever one considers the transition of post‐Communist economies to a market system (which, in fact, is nothing but post‐Communist transition to capitalist economies), it has to be placed on record, as this kind of transition has no precedent in history.
Findings
The main mistake of gradualists stems from their overlooking some very important conditions for successful transition: political guarantees and internal assets for reforms. And the success of shock therapy rests on the paradox, “the worse, the better”.
Originality/value
There is as yet no special economic theory of post‐Communist transformation and it is just developing. This paper helps one to understand the main features of shock therapy and gradualism for designing the framework of such a theory. It is geared towards researchers and students interested in the theoretical aspects of the post‐Communist economic transition to markets.