Baltic Journal of Economic Studies  

74

Vol. 6, No. 1, 2020

Corresponding author:
1 Kyiv National University of Trade and Economics, Ukraine.
E-mail: v.lagutin@knute.edu.ua
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6626-4381
ResearcherID: N-7693-2016
2 Kyiv National University of Trade and Economics, Ukraine.
Е-mail: y.yasko@knute.edu.ua
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8756-4612 
ResearcherID: B-9894-2019

DOI: https://doi.org/10.30525/2256-0742/2020-6-1-74-79

INSTITUTIONAL DETERMINANTS OF INNOVATIVE 
DEVELOPMENT IN THE ECONOMY OF THE XXI CENTURY

Vasyl Lagutin1, Yuliya Yasko2

Abstract. The article analyzed the problem of institutional determinants of innovative development in the 
21st century, which is not yet sufficiently understood in a scientific sense. It is established that poor quality and 
inconsistency of institutions with macro– and microeconomic mechanisms exacerbates the problem of institutional 
determinants of providing innovative development in the economy of the 21st century. The subject of the research 
is the institutional determinants (a set of formal and informal rules and regulations, incentives and mechanisms) 
that determine the provision of innovative development. Economic development implies a progressive change in 
the institutional environment of the national innovation system. In the context of the above, it is proved that the 
peculiarities of the content of institutional determinants of innovative development in Ukraine are characterized 
by complication of interconnections and forms of manifestation, strengthening of transformational tendencies. 
It is determined that the effect of institutional determinants is manifested through the influence of three types 
of institutions: primary (basic) market institutions (protection of property rights and investments, observance of 
rights and obligations, fixed by the contract system, freedom competition); development institutes (regulatory 
environment, business climate, regulatory business opportunities, judicial independence); institutes of efficiency 
(developed human and social capital, effective legislative support, impartiality of judges, reliability of law 
enforcement agencies. The research methodology is based on the methods of a holistic systematic approach to 
institutional analysis, interconnections and the logic of institutional determinants of innovation development. It 
is crucial to build holistic logical constructs (based on a model of innovative behavior) that allow a full analysis 
of existing institutional relationships. The purpose of the research is to analyze the institutional determinants of 
innovation development in the economy of the 21st century, to evaluate possible directions for more effective 
innovation management. Regulation of scientific aspects of institutes and institutional determinants allowed to 
re-evaluate traditional problems of innovative development. The main conclusions of the research relate to the 
justification of the set of institutional determinants that ensure the effective interdependence of institutional and 
innovation dynamics. It is argued that the institutional determinants of innovative change cannot be considered 
outside the interconnections. It is determined that the most problematic issues of readiness for innovation are: 
a small proportion of firms that are able to perceive and implement innovative technologies, lack of sufficient 
resources, low interest in purchasing new technological products. It is established that the effective use of 
institutional determinants of innovative development is possible only on the basis of the formation and effective 
implementation of the mechanism for managing the institutional stimulation of relevant innovation changes. It 
has been shown that scientific clarification of institutional determinants is a prerequisite for a deeper analysis of 
the effective development of the national innovation system. Only effective institutions can provide the necessary 
opportunities for innovative development. In this context, there is a need to further expand the institutional 
research of the innovation system.

Key words: institutes, institutional determinants, institutional stimulation, innovations, innovative system, 
innovative development.

JEL Classification: E02, О12, О30



Baltic Journal of Economic Studies  

75

Vol. 6, No. 1, 2020

1. Introduction
The interconnection of institutional 

transformation and innovative development is 
evident that in various aspects is revealed in the 
economic literature: conceptual – A. Greif (2006), 
D. North (1990), J. Schumpeter (1942/2003); socio-
economic – D. Acemoglu, S. Johnson, J. Robinson 
(2004), W. Baumol (2002), D. Rodrik (2007); historical 
and economic – M. Kreuzer (2001); economic and 
technological – K. Schwab (2018), M. Guerrero, 
D. Urbano (2019), N. Carvalho, Z. Yordanova (2018), 
R . Malaquias, A. Albertin (2018); program-target – 
UNCTAD (2018), World Economic Forum (2019).

The low quality of institutions and their inconsistency 
with macro– and microeconomic mechanisms 
exacerbates the problem of institutional determinants of 
innovative development in the 21st century economy. 
The problem of scientific identification of institutional 
determinants (causes and factors) of innovation 
development is relevant and significant today. First of 
all, it is about the relevance of the research of the content 
of institutional rules and mechanisms for ensuring their 
compliance, structural and essential characteristics of 
institutional constraints, as well as the forms of their 
evolution in the process of institutional management of 
the new information economy.

All of the above conditioned the relevance of the 
following scientific tasks of the research: theoretical 
and methodological assessment of the content of 
institutional determinants of innovative development, 
identification of features of the system of institutional 
determinants of information economy. The need to solve 
problems involved with the innovative development of 
the 21st century economy will require the use of new 
stimulating institutional determinants in management 
theory and practice. These tasks determined the logic of 
submission of the material under study.

Based on a systematic understanding of the 
interconnection and interaction between institutional 
and information-network transformations, prospects 
are opened for developing important provisions of 
the institutional theory of innovative development, 
which allows to explain both traditional tendencies 
and patterns, and new, not actually studied, issues of 
improvement of economic institutions.

2. Theoretical characteristics of institutional 
determinants of innovative development

Institutionalism in this article is considered in a broad 
enough methodological sense, including all the main 
areas of modern neo-institutional theory in the context 
of a broad interpretation of various patterns of social 
(collective) forms of existence.

Institutional determinants will be understood to mean 
those factors (a set of rules and regulations, as well as 
mechanisms of implementation), by which the relations 

and interactions between entities of the innovation 
market are institutionally structured and the conditions 
for innovation development are provided. It is 
important not only to identify the relevant institutional 
determinants, but also to show: in what cases and how do 
they interact to maximize the positive effects? In order 
to the potential institutional determinants of innovative 
development to work, the respective institutions must 
be compatible in their content and form, and adequate 
organizations in the economy and public authorities 
should be capable of interaction (coordination).

Innovative development can only be achieved 
through effective institutions. Existing institutions are 
embedded in an economy that they simultaneously 
reflect and shape. Institutions should be embedded in 
relevant business practices. Higher quality institutions 
contribute to innovative development, while poor 
quality ones have a negative impact on this process.

Institutions arise on the basis of a complex interaction 
of economic and socio-political factors, endogenous 
and exogenous circumstances, determined by mental 
socio-cultural factors, beliefs and customs of a given 
society. It is obvious that economic institutions are 
closely intertwined with political, legal, social and 
ethical standards. Under these conditions, institutional 
theory cannot but be based on an integrated approach 
and analysis of the mutual penetration of these 
norms. In this respect, it is obvious that the influence 
of institutional determinants on the dynamics and 
perspectives of innovative development is largely 
determined by the specificity of civic culture and the 
level of development of human and social capital. 
A kind of stabilization framework for the innovative 
development of the national economy is the balance of 
the multi-level system of interests of economic entities.

The effect of institutional determinants is manifested 
through the influence of three types of institutions: 
primary (basic) market institutions (protection of 
property rights and investments, observance of rights 
and obligations fixed by the contract system, freedom 
of competition); development institutes (regulatory 
environment, business climate, normative business 
opportunities, judicial independence); institutes 
of efficiency (developed human and social capital, 
effective legislative support, impartiality of judges, 
reliability of law enforcement agencies). The proper 
functionality, reliability and efficiency of the creation 
and systematic functioning of these institutions are 
the necessary conditions for ensuring the innovation 
of the XXI century economy. Outside the holistic 
interaction of basic market institutes, development 
institutes and efficiency institutes, it is impossible to 
ensure innovative development in such perspectives 
in the 21st century areas such as: artificial intelligence, 
automation of robotic processes, intelligent transport 
systems, blockchain, intellectual things (including the 
Internet of Things), quantum and cloud computing, 



Baltic Journal of Economic Studies  

76

Vol. 6, No. 1, 2020
nanotechnology, biotechnology, fintech technology, 
digital ecosystems, etc.

With regard to Ukraine, under the current conditions, 
the threats of innovative development are caused by the 
influence of a number of destructive determinants – both 
external (unfavorable geopolitical situation, currency 
and financial instability, excessive dependence on 
world commodity markets), and internal (high level 
of corruption, oligarchization of economy, shadowing, 
acute structural imbalances). Innovative development 
will be severely curtailed if there are no structural 
reforms adequate for fiscal and monetary policy.

If earlier it seemed that the tendency of low level of 
innovative development in the economy of Ukraine 
is temporary and will be overcome in the near future 
without much institutional effort, today it becomes 
more and more clear that the situation is much more 
complicated. A long-term trend is a violation of the 
natural mechanism of creative destruction (according 
to J. Schumpeter). This is, in our opinion, the main 
institutional reason for the lack of incentives for the 
Ukrainian business to innovate development.

3. Model of innovative behavioral companies 
(formalization of tasks)

Despite the large inertia, firms' response to 
technological and innovation challenges can generally 
be considered satisfactory. However, questions about 
the effectiveness of innovation institutions, the use 
of incentives to promote innovation, the volume and 
structure of funding remain. Is innovative development 
possible in the absence of a full-fledged innovation 
market and technology transfer in Ukraine, poor quality 
and insufficient institutional determinants of innovative 
development?

To answer these questions, at least in the first 
approximation, we formulate the simplest model 
of innovative behavior of a modern firm on the 
basis of adaptive management. Let � �I Id dn1  denote 
the institutional determinants (one of three types 
of stimulating, disincentive, neutral) that influence 
innovation Ií( ), which should be implemented at the 
basic level of impact i0( ). These types of institutional 
determinants under specific socio-economic conditions 
are not alternative or mutually exclusive. In fact, 
the complex effect of institutional determinants of 
innovation development can often be explained only 
within the limits of all these interpretations.

The general statement of the control problem in this 
case involves the selection of the control object – Ií, the 
dynamics of which depend on managerial influence – Id.  
After increasing the level of influence of the institutions
� i0( ), for example, by 10 pp. (0,1) institutional incentives 
for innovative development, all things being equal, are 
increasing at i i0 00 1+( ), / � times. In this case, the external 
impact is determined by the amount of resources or 

investment costs that depend on the discount rate – δ. 
Thus, the equation of operation of the control object 
will look like:

� � �І i i Ií t d( ) = +( )δ 0 00 1, /                    (1) 
where: t – is a certain point in time.
Let as a result of strengthening of stimulating influence 

of institutional determinants firm increases production 
output by 1 +( )q  times. Then the investment costs can 
be offset by increasing the income from innovation. 
Suppose that revenue from innovation increases in 
proportion to output. In this case, the economic impact 
of the innovative activity Yjt( ) will be:

� �Y qI i ijt í t= +( )( ) 0 00 1, /                    (2)
where: I ií 0 0 1+( ),  – innovations that the firm 

would introduce in enhancing the incentive effect of 
institutional determinants and previous output; j – kind 
of innovation.

Formulas (1) and (2) hold, first and foremost, for 
institutional determinants.

Thus, by expanding the use of innovative technologies 
and ensuring output growth, the firm thus creates the 
conditions for maximizing the economic impact of 
innovative development. Let this increase in economic 
effect also occur in proportion to the change in output. 
In this case, the task of maximizing the economic impact 
of innovative development will look like:

j

n

jtY çàóìîâè
=

→∑
1

� � �max  

j

n

kj j ka i s k m ij j n
=
∑ ≤ = ≥ =
1

1 0 1� � � �, , , , , , 
                 (3)

where: akj – the amount of resources spent to 
implement j-type innovation; sk − given volumes of 
resources; ij  – the impact of institutional determinants 
on achieving the proper effect of j-type innovation.

If ij (incentive and neutral determinants) is negative, 
this task is solvable and the total effect of implementation 
of innovation can be expressed by the amount of 
resources expended.

Of course, the assumption of direct proportion 
dependence the effect on innovation and output 
is simplification. The effect of implementing each 
type of innovation is calculated on the basis of its 
own compensation base. Generally, their values are 
nonlinearly related to production. But in substantiating 
the conceptual scheme of our model we will proceed 
from the fact that the proportions between the studied 
indicators are constant and do not change with the 
implementation of this or that type of innovation.

4. Specificity of institutional determinants  
of innovative development in Ukraine

In the 1990s, primary (basic) market institutes and 
organizations were formed in Ukraine: private property, 
entrepreneurship, investment institute, infrastructure 



Baltic Journal of Economic Studies  

77

Vol. 6, No. 1, 2020
institutes (banks, exchanges), institute of business 
reputation, self-regulatory organizations. It is another 
matter that their content immediately turned perverted, 
and since the early 2000s all these basic market institutes 
have started to work for the interests of oligarchs and 
corrupt bureaucracy.

For development institutions, the costs of their 
formation and engagement will not be excessive if the 
benefits of operating these institutions outweigh the 
costs associated with their underperformance. In the 
context of the above, it can be said that the process 
of formation of innovative development institutes 
in Ukraine can be accelerated by identifying and 
supporting groups of economic entities that are in 
demand for these new institutions.

In the 21st century, there is a larger and more complex 
task of establishing efficiency institutes. Efficiency 
institutes provide an opportunity to maintain the 
necessary institutional environment to ensure a higher 
level of innovative development. These tasks in Ukraine 
are still being addressed in a far ineffective manner with 
the mass of institutional distortions and strains. As 
a result, a true institutional archaic with its administrative 
and market principles was formed. Formation of 
positive innovative expectations in Ukraine is fraught 
with many difficulties. Thus, the role of opportunism in 
the economic behavior of firms, the bureaucratic and 
corruptive constraints of innovation is too important.

So far, the institutes formed in Ukraine do not induce 
effective innovative development, and the organizations 
formed on their basis have no motivation to create 
more stimulating economic rules. The performance of 
institutional determinants of innovative development in 
terms of underdeveloped institutions is worsening.

The quality of the institutional determinants of 
innovative development can be assessed by comparing 
the institutional components of international rankings.

Consider as an example the Global Innovation Index, 
which is one of the most famous indices in the world. 
On this basis, a comparative assessment of a number of 
institutional determinants of innovative development is 
carried out: political position, regulatory and business 
environment, level of trade and competition, business 
experience, etc.

In the 2018 Global Innovation Index, jointly prepared 
by Cornell University, the INSEAD Business School and 
the World Intellectual Property Organization, Ukraine 
ranked 43rd in 2018 (50th in 2017), ahead of the Russian 
Federation was 46th, Moldova was 48th, Kazakhstan 
was 74th, Belarus was 86th (The Global Innovation 
Index, 2017). The basis of Ukraine's innovative 
competitiveness is human capital and research, as well 
as the knowledge and results of scientific research.  
At the same time, the ranking of Ukraine is low according 
to the subindex "Innovative capacity " in 2018, it is  
58th place, and the subindex "Implementation of ICT" 
is 77th place (The Global Innovation Index, 2017).

Ukraine has a rather low ranking of institutions and 
the institutional environment of innovation in the 
global space. In 2018, Ukraine ranked 107th in the 
Institution sub-index (2017 – 101), including in terms 
of the political environment – 122nd (122nd place in 
2017), regulatory – 78th (82nd in 2017), as of business 
environment – 100th (78th place in 2017). Market 
indicators of Ukraine are estimated at 42.7 points, which 
corresponds to 89th place in the rating (81st place in 
2017), incl. on loans – 84th place, investments – 115th, 
level of trade and competition – 45th. According to 
business experience, Ukraine took 46th place (in terms 
of the number of intellectual workers it was 41st place, 
innovation relations – 63rd, perception of knowledge – 
75th) (The Global Competitiveness Report, 2016-2018).

In the 2018 Global Competitiveness Index, Ukraine 
ranks 103rd in terms efficiency of legislative support 
in dispute resolution, 107th in the effectiveness of 
legislative support in appealing against decisions, 
107th in social capital, 109th in corruption coverage, 
organized crime – 111th place, protection of intellectual 
property rights – 114th place, government orientation 
for the future – 115th place, independence of 
judges – 117th place, auditing and reporting standards –  
120th place, property right – 129th place (The Global 
Competitiveness Report, 2016-2018).

The indicators of such institutional determinants 
are low: the legal system and protection of property 
rights, communications and entrepreneurship, market 
and regulatory opportunities, the independence of the 
judiciary, the reliability of law enforcement, and the 
impartiality of judges. The lack of a proper institutional 
environment in Ukraine can be considered as one of the 
most serious barriers to innovative progress.

An acute problem is the lack of sufficient resources 
to fund innovation and their inefficient structure. If in 
2016 the volume of financing of innovative activity in 
the economy of Ukraine amounted to 23.2 bln UAH 
(4.6% of gross value added in industry), it was smaller in 
other years. The only exception was 2015 with 13.8 bln 
UAH (3.5%) and 2011 with 14.3 bln UAH (4.8%). The 
volume of financing for innovation activity in 2017 was 
very small – only 9.1 bln UAH (1.4%), 2014 – 7.4 bln 
UAH (2.4%), 2013 – 9.6 bln UAH (3.2%), 2012 – 
11.5 bln UAH (3.7%) (UkrISTEI, 2019).

An unfavorable factor for innovative development 
is the almost absolute predominance in the sources of 
financing innovative costs in the industry of Ukraine 
of the own funds of enterprises: 2012 – 63.9%, 2013 – 
72.9%, 2014 – 85.0%, 2015 – up to 97.2%, 2016 – 94.9%, 
2017 – 84.5%. The underdeveloped banking system 
and stock market institutions cause for a very low share 
of loans and funds domestic and foreign investors in 
financing innovation: 2012 – 0.2% and 21.0%, 2013 – 
1.6% and 6.6%, 2014 – 0.1% and 7.3%, 2015 – 0.3% and 
0.8%, 2016 – 0.4% and 2.7%, 2017 – 1.0% and 6.5% 
(UkrISTEI, 2019).



Baltic Journal of Economic Studies  

78

Vol. 6, No. 1, 2020

5. Institutional stimulation of innovative 
development (managerial aspect)

Institutional stimulation of innovation is of 
paramount importance today. This means that adaptive 
management orientation must be combined with 
a gradual transition to active innovation management. 
It is important to base non-discretionary rules based on 
institutional management of innovative development: 
their development, use for influencing innovative 
behavior, management of these rules.

The modern mechanism for managing innovative 
development is based on the connection and 
interconnection between state regulation, innovative 
business and its institutional environment (institutional 
determinants) in the field of modern technologies of 
Industry 4.0. The content and logic of managing the 
institutional stimulation of innovative development is 
dictated by the specific economic situation of the firm.

Institutional management of innovation development 
is based on human capital, intellectual assets, the 
activities of innovator workers, research programs, 
financial support for innovation, investment growth, 
effective communication and entrepreneurship. All this 
enhances the innovative potential of the company.

The most problematic issues of readiness for 
innovation are: a small proportion of firms that are 
able to adopt and implement innovative technologies, 
lack of sufficient resources, low interest in purchasing 
new technological products. Innovative development 
is inseparable from enhancing the dynamism of a firm 
that applies self-organization principles based on its 
attractiveness to investors. The innovative development 
management system is designed to ensure that the goal 
is met to the fullest extent possible and to maximize the 
use of the incentive potential of the existing institutional 
determinants. In this regard, the three main management 
units can be considered: opportunities (innovation 
potential), innovation activity of the firm, the result of 
innovative development.

There are two ways of managing innovation 
development modes: mode of fast development and 
mode of slow development. The most difficult of all 
aspects of innovative development regimes is the 
mode of fast development, especially in the context 
of increasing uncertainty in the making and decision 
making. The mode of slow innovation development 
is usually one of the stages of implementation of 
crisis management. Mode of slow development is 
characteristic of the limited resources that a firm is able 
to allocate to support innovative development.

Increasing investment is necessary to ensure 
innovative development. A proper investment effect 
can only be achieved if effective institutions are in place. 
By analyzing the external institutional environment 
constantly, firms concentrate resources and investments 
on the most useful and profitable areas of innovative 

development. Without reliable institutions for 
innovative development, economic mechanisms for 
attracting investment will not work. Going beyond 
these limits with existing institutional determinants will 
only discourage innovative development.

The paradox of the situation often lies in the fact 
that a significant increase in investment can, in our 
view, significantly increase the risk of destabilization 
of existing institutions, which are not able to ensure 
the proper effectiveness of innovative activity. When 
development and efficiency institutes are in their 
infancy, they cannot give proper effect as institutional 
determinants of investment in innovative technologies.

It is considered that the resources of internal 
institutional sectors should become a real and adequate 
source of investment resources formation. Improving 
the quality of financial market institutions is required 
to put this innovative development factor into practice. 
In the current context, the lack of institutions of capital 
inflows and securitization discourages investment 
and innovation development. Financial institutional 
determinants must be able to fulfill their functions 
of effectively redistributing resources and risks to 
innovation.

In practice, only those innovations that will be 
realistically capitalized and promising in terms of 
winning a better competitive place in the market 
make sense. The firm must effectively perceive market 
changes, responding to them faster and more accurately. 
This will be facilitated, in particular, by the online 
capabilities of networking technologies, making new 
market information available anywhere and in real time.

The system of institutional determinants of innovative 
development adequate to the new conditions can be 
formed only on the basis of effective management. 
Innovative modernization will be the result of successful 
development management.

6. Conclusions
The analysis makes the following conclusions.  

The basis of innovative development is a viable 
institutional system that delivers innovation when 
appropriate institutional determinants are in place. In 
the case of unsatisfactory institutional determinants, 
the main parameters of innovation activity remain low. 
When determining the effectiveness of institutional 
determinants of innovation development, it is correct 
to compare the quality of institutions with the effect 
obtained (result). The complex effective use of 
institutional determinants of innovative development is 
possible only on the basis of the formation and effective 
implementation of the mechanism for managing the 
institutional stimulation of relevant innovation changes.

In discussing the innovative challenges facing firms in 
the 21st century, one should rethink the traditional role 
of the institutional environment, taking into account 



Baltic Journal of Economic Studies  

79

Vol. 6, No. 1, 2020
the contemporary characteristics of the institutional 
dynamics of the world's leading countries. It is on this 
basis that the scale and versatility of innovation, which 
is a feature of Industry 4.0, will be ensured. Even today, 
and even more so in the future, innovations will have no 
socio-economic sense outside the information network. 
Any innovation should "enter" into network structures, 
become an element of the interactive network.

The identification and use of institutional 
determinants of innovative development is often 
very difficult. To overcome them, there is a need for 
a coherent management approach that would ensure 
the efficiency of the operating, financial and innovation-
investment processes of firms as elements of the socio-
economic system. In this case, additional research is 
required.

References:
Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. (2004). Institutionals as the Fundamental Cause of Long-Run Growth. 
In: Aghion Ph., Durlauf St. (eds.). Handbook of Economic Growth. North Holland, pp. 386–472.
Baumol, W. J. (2002). The free-market innovation machine: Analyzing the growth miracle of capitalism. 
Princeton University Press, 336 p.
Carvalho, N., & Yordanova, Z. (2018). Why say no to innovation? Evidence from industrial SMEs in European 
Union. Journal of Technology Management and Innovation. Vol. 13, No 2, pp. 43–56.
Greif, A. (2006). Institutions and the path to the modern economy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 526 p.
Guerrero, M., &  Urbano, D. (2019). Effectiveness of technology transfer policies and legislation in fostering 
entrepreneurial innovations across continents: an overview. The Journal of Technology Transfer. Vol. 44, No 5,  
pp. 1347–1366.
Kreuzer, M. (2001). Institutions and innovation: Voters, parties, and interest groups in the consolidation of 
democracy – France and Germany, 1870-1939. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 224 p.
Malaquias, R., & Albertin, A. (2018). The Value of Being Innovative in Information Technology. Journal of 
Technology Management and Innovation. Vol. 13, No 1, pp. 3–10.
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. New York: Cambridge 
University Press, 152 p.
Rodrik, D. (2007). One economics, many recipes: Globalization, institutions, and economic growth. Princeton 
University Press, 280 p.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1942/2003). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. London and New York: Stockholm 
University, 460 p.
Schwab, K. (2018). Shaping The Fourth Industrial Revolution. World Economic Forum. Geneva, 274 p.
The Global Innovation Index (2017). URL: https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/gii-2017-report; The Global 
Innovation Index 2018. URL: https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/gii-2018-report (accessed April, 7, 2019).
The Global Competitiveness Report. World Economic Forum (2016–2018). URL: http://www3.weforum.org/
docs/WEF_TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport (accessed April, 7, 2019).
UkrINTEI (2019). Stan innovacijnoji dijaljnosti ta dijaljnosti u sferi transferu tekhnologhij v Ukrajini u 2018 roci: 
analitychna dovidka. Kyiv: UkrINTEI, 80 p.
UNCTAD (2018). World investment report 2018. Investment and new industrial policies. United Nations 
publications, 213 p.