Quantifying the Impact of Innovation-Driven Supply Factors on Economic Growth and Innovation-Development Security
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.34021/ve.2025.08.02(2)Keywords:
innovation-driven growth, aggregate supply, economic growth, innovation security, innovation indicatorsAbstract
The accelerating transition toward knowledge-based and innovation-oriented economies has intensified the need to assess how innovation-driven supply factors influence economic growth and innovation-development security. Although many studies have examined the relationship between innovation, productivity, and competitiveness, important research gaps remain, particularly regarding the quantitative assessment of innovation-driven macroeconomic factors within the aggregate supply framework and their direct contribution to innovation security as an element of national economic resilience. Furthermore, existing international evaluation approaches, including the European Innovation Scoreboard, do not adequately capture systemic sustainability, vulnerability thresholds, or stability margins of innovation systems. Addressing these limitations, this study provides a scientifically grounded quantitative evaluation of the contribution of classical aggregate supply macro factors and innovation-related macro factors to economic growth, while operationalising resulting indicators of innovation-development security for comparative assessment across potential (Ukraine, Georgia), actual (Poland), and former (United Kingdom) EU member states. A neoclassical Cobb–Douglas production function embedded within a Keynesian analytical framework is applied, incorporating Hicks-neutral technical progress, constant returns to scale, and diminishing marginal productivity. Innovation drivers—such as gross domestic expenditure on R&D, innovation expenditure, and total education expenditure—are integrated into a dynamic model establishing causal relationships between inputs and outputs without requiring extended time-series datasets. The Solow residual methodology formalises the contribution of innovation and classical macroeconomic determinants to total factor productivity and economic growth, while key innovation security indicators are proposed, supported by defined safe-existence boundaries. The results demonstrate a substantial and heterogeneous influence of innovation inputs on growth dynamics, resilience, and systemic stability, revealing structural asymmetries and potential vulnerabilities. The study concludes that innovation is not only a fundamental driver of economic development but also a crucial determinant of innovation-development security, offering policymakers analytical tools for monitoring resilience, identifying risks, and strengthening long-term competitiveness.
Downloads
References
1. OECD. (2018). Oslo manual 2018: Guidelines for collecting, reporting and using data on innovation (4th ed.). OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/science/oslo-manual-2018-9789264304604-en.htm
2. Barnett, P. (2014). If What Gets Measured Gets Managed, Measuring the Wrong Thing Matters! https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140721142143-190861715-if-what-gets-measured-gets-managed-measuring-the-wrong-thing-matters/
3. Xu, Y., & Li, A. (2020). The Relationship between Innovative Human Capital and Interprovincial Economic Growth Based on Panel Data Model and Spatial Econometrics. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 365, Article 112381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2019.112381
4. Akpakwu, G. A., Silva, B. J., Hancke, G. P., & Abu-Mahfouz, A. M. (2018). A survey on 5G networks for the Internet of Things: Communication technologies and challenges. IEEE Access, 6, 3619–3647. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2779844
5. van der Waal, J.W.H., Thijssens, T., & Maas, K. (2021). The Innovative Contribution of Multinational Enterprises to the Sustainable Development Goals. Journal of Cleaner Production, 285, Article 125319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125319
6. Wang, C., & Lu, Y. (2020). Can Economic Structural Change and Transition Explain Cross-Country Differences in Innovative Activity? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 159, Article 120194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120194
7. Hysa, E., Kruja, A., Rehman, N.U., & Laurenti, R. (2020). Circular Economy Innovation and Environmental Sustainability Impact on Economic Growth: An Integrated Model for Sustainable Development. Sustainability, 12(12), Article 4831. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12124831
8. Maradana, R.P., Pradhan, R.P., Dash, S., Gaurav, K., Jayakumar, M., & Chatterjee, D. (2017). Does Innovation Promote Economic Growth? Evidence from European countries. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 6, 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-016-0061-9
9. Dahmani, M., & Mabrouki, M. (2025). Human Capital, Innovation, Governance and Economic Growth in Resource-Rich and Resource-Poor MENA Countries: New Evidence from the CS-ARDL Approach. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1-35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-02408-8
10. Hardi, I., Ray, S., Attari, M. U. Q., Ali, N., & Idroes, G. M. (2024). Innovation and Economic Growth in the Top Five Southeast Asian Economies: A Decomposition Analysis. Ekonomikalia Journal of Economics, 2(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.60084/eje.v2i1.145
11. Aminullah, E. (2024). Forecasting of Technology Innovation and Economic Growth in Indonesia. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 202, 123333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123333
12. Thompson, M. (2018). Social Capital, Innovation and Economic Growth. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 73, 46-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2018.01.005
13. Jorgenson, D. W., & Stiroh, K. J. (2000). Raising the speed limit: U.S. economic growth in the information age. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2000(1), 125–210. https://doi.org/10.1353/eca.2000.0008
14. Jorgenson, D.W., Ho, M.S., Stiroh, K.J. (2003). Lessons from the U.S. Growth Resurgence. Journal of Policy Modeling, 25(5), 453-470. https://doi.org./10.1016/S0161-8938(03)00040-1
15. O'Mahony, M., & Vecchi, M. (2003). Is there an ICT impact on TFP? A heterogeneous dynamic panel approach (NIESR Discussion Paper No. 219). National Institute of Economic and Social Research.
16. Acemoglu, D., Autor, D., Dorn, D., Hanson, G. H., & Price, B. (2014). Return of the Solow paradox? IT, productivity, and employment in U.S. manufacturing. American Economic Review, 104(5), 394–399. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.5.394
17. Brynjolfsson, E., & Hitt, L. (2003). Computing productivity: Firm-level evidence. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(4), 793–808. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465303772815736
18. Garcia-Herrero, A., & Xu, J. (2018). How big is China's digital economy? (HKUST IEMS Working Paper No. 2018-56). Bruegel Working Paper Series. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3237275
19. Pradhan, R. P., Arvin, M. B., Nair, M., Bahmani, S., & Hall, J. H. (2018). Endogenous dynamics between innovation, financial markets, venture capital and economic growth: Evidence from Europe. Journal of Multinational Financial Management, 45, 15–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mulfin.2018.01.002
20. Timmis, K., de Lorenzo, V., Verstraete, W., García, J. L., Ramos, J. L., Santos, H., Economidis, I., Nogales, B., Timmis, J. K., Fonseca, C., Pruzzo, C., Karagouni, A., Panopoulos, N., & Dixon, B. (2014). Pipelines for new chemicals: A strategy to create new value chains and stimulate innovation-based economic revival in Southern European countries. Environmental Microbiology, 16(1), 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.12337
21. Gál, Z. (2005). A new tool for economic growth: The role of innovation in the transformation and regional development of Hungary. Geographia Polonica, 78(2), 31–51.
22. Dementyev, V., Dalevska, N., & Kwilinski, A. (2021, January 31). Innovation and information aspects of the structural organization of the world political and economic space. Virtual Economics, 4(1), 54–76. https://doi.org/10.34021/ve.2021.04.01(3)
23. Dzwigol, H., Kwilinski, A., Lyulyov, O., & Pimonenko, T. (2023). Renewable energy, knowledge spillover and innovation: Capacity of environmental regulation. Energies, 16(3), Article 1117. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16031117
24. Kharazishvili, Y., Kwilinski, A., Ivaniuta, S., Sukhodolia, O., & Czart, P. (2025). System of indicators for the environmental component of sustainable development in the security dimension. Sustainable Development, 33(S1), 146–160. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.70000
25. Kwilinski, A. (2024). Understanding the nonlinear effect of digital technology development on CO₂ reduction. Sustainable Development, 32(5), 5797–5811. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2964
26. Kwilinski, A. (2025). GDP per capita vs foreign direct investment: Key drivers of a country’s technological leadership. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 31(5), 1320–1344. https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2025.22857
27. Kwilinski, A., Lyulyov, O., & Pimonenko, T. (2025). The role of innovation development in advancing green finance. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 18(3), Article 140. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm18030140
28. Kwiliński, A., Dacko-Pikiewicz, Z., Szczepańska-Woszczyna, K., Lyulyov, O., & Pimonenko, T. (2025). The role of innovation in the transition to a green economy: A path to sustainable growth. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 11(2), Article 100530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joitmc.2025.100530
29. Szczepanska-Woszczyna, K., Lyulyov, O., Pimonenko, T., Infante-Moro, A., Zimbroff, A., & Solodovnikov, S. (2024). The Contribution of Higher Education to Innovation Development: Long-Term and Short-Term Analysis. Forum Scientiae Oeconomia, 12(4), 8–29. https://doi.org/10.23762/FSO_VOL12_NO4_1
30. Thirakulwanich, A., Szczepańska-Woszczyna, K., & Kot, S. (2025). Policy instruments and green indicators in the diffusion of green innovation: A comparative analysis of Poland and Thailand. Challenges in Sustainability, 13(1), 35-47. https://doi.org/10.56578/cis130103
31. Trzeciak, M., Kopec, T. P., & Kwilinski, A. (2022). Constructs of project programme management supporting open innovation at the strategic level of the organisation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 8(1), Article 58. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8010058
32. Zastempowski, M., & Cyfert, S. (2023). Innovation strategies in European Union transport firms: The role of process innovation. Polish Journal of Management Studies, 28(1), 397–413. https://doi.org/10.17512/pjms.2023.28.1.23
33. Szczyrba, M., & Pacsi, D. (2023). The Role of Serendipity in the Innovation Management Cycle. Forum Scientiae Oeconomia, 11(4), 145–156. https://doi.org/10.23762/FSO_VOL11_NO4_7
34. Arrow, K. J. (1962). The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing. The Review of Economic Studies, 29(3), 155-173. https://doi.org/10.2307/2295952
35. Solow, R. (1991). Growth Theory. In M. Bleaney, D. Greenaway, D. I. Stewart, & I. Stewart (Eds.), Companion to Contemporary Economic Thought (рр. 393-415). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203980118
36. Denison, E. F. (1962). The Sources of Economic Growth in the United States and the Alternatives Before Us. New York: Committee for Economic Development.
37. Oppenländer, K. H. (1980). Zur Produktivitätsentwicklung in der verarbeitenden Industrie der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. In J. Frohn & R. Stäglin (Eds.), Empirische Wirtschaftsforschung – Konzeptionen, Verfahren und Ergebnisse: Festschrift für Rolf Kreugel aus Anlass seines 60. Geburtstages (pp. 145–168). Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
38. Basu, S., Fernald, J. G., & Kimball, M. S. (2006). Are Technology Improvements Contractionary?. American Economic Review, 96(5), 1418-1448. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.96.5.1418
39. Welfe, W. (2002). Growth Determinants of Economic Potential. The Polish Case. Economy and Forecasting, 4, 35-55. https://eip.org.ua/docs/EP_02_4_35_en.pdf
40. Kaldor, N. (1957). A Model of Economic Growth. The Economic Journal, 67(268), 591-624. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2227704
41. Hesse, H. (1969). Die Meßbarkeit des technischen Fortschritts, dargestellt am Beispiel der Textilindustrie. Zeitschrift für Allgemeine und Textile Marktwirtschaft, Sonderheft.
42. Brinkmann, G. (1970). Zur Wissenschaftstheorie der Ökonometrie. Kyklos, 23(2), 205-225. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6435.1970.tb02555.x
43. Tinbergen, J., & Bos, H. (1962). Mathematical models of economic growth. In J. Tinbergen (Ed.), Economics handbook series (pp. 52–75). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. https://repub.eur.nl/pub/16009/CHAPTER4.PDF
44. Kharazishvili, Y., Kwiliński, A., Dźwigoł, H., & Dźwigoł-Barosz, M. (2021). Modelling innovation contribution to economic growth of industrial regions. Determinants of Regional Development: Conference Proceedings, (2), 558–578. https://doi.org/10.14595/CP/02/035
45. Kharazishvili, Y., Kwilinski, A., Dzwigol, H., & Liashenko, V. (2021). Strategic European integration scenarios of Ukrainian and Polish research, education and innovation spaces. Virtual Economics, 4(2), 7–40. The London Academy of Science and Business. https://doi.org/10.34021/ve.2021.04.02(1)
46. Sukhorukov, A. I., & Kharazishvili, Y. M. (2012). Modeling and Forecasting of Socio-Economic Development of Regions of Ukraine: Monograph. Kyiv: NISD.
47. Kharazishvili, Y., & Kwilinski, A. (2022). Methodology for Determining the Limit Values of National Security Indicators Using Artificial Intelligence Methods. Virtual Economics, 5(4), 7-26. https://doi.org/10.34021/ve.2022.05.04(1)
48. State Statistics Service of Ukraine. (n.d.). 17 goals to transform our world: Indicators for Ukraine. https://sdg.ukrstat.gov.ua/
49. State Statistics Service of Ukraine. (n.d.). Official website of the State Statistics Service of Ukraine. https://stat.gov.ua/en
50. Office for National Statistics (ONS). (n.d.). Official statistics of the United Kingdom. https://www.ons.gov.uk
51. National Statistics Office of Georgia (GeoStat). (n.d.). Official statistics of Georgia. https://www.geostat.ge/en
52. Statistics Poland (Główny Urząd Statystyczny, GUS). (n.d.). Official statistics of Poland. https://stat.gov.pl/en
53. Eurostat. (n.d.). Official statistics of the European Union. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat
54. World Bank. (n.d.). World development indicators. https://data.worldbank.org
55. International Monetary Fund (IMF). (n.d.). IMF data portal. https://data.imf.org
56. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (n.d.). OECD data. https://data.oecd.org
57. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). (n.d.). UNCTADstat data centre. https://unctadstat.unctad.org
58. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (n.d.). Human development data centre. https://hdr.undp.org
59. van Gigch, J. (1978). Applied General Systems Theory. London, UK: Harper & Row.
60. Turner, J.C. (1970). Modern Applied Mathematics: Probability, Statistics, Operational Research. London, UK: English Universities Press.
61. Blashfield, R., & Aldenderfer, M. (1988). The Methods and Problems of Cluster Analysis. In J. R. Nesselroade, & R. B. Cattell (Eds.), Handbook of Multivariate Experimental Psychology. Perspectives on Individual Differences (pp. 447-473). Boston, MA: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-0893-5_14
62. Kharazishvili, Y., Lyashenko, V., Bugayko, D., Ustinova, I., Shevchenko, O., & Kalinin, O. (2023). Justification of the Identification of Threats and Problematic Components of Sustainable Regional Development in the Security Dimension. E3S Web of Conferences, 408, Article 01028. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202340801028
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Yurii Kharazishvili, Aleksy Kwilinski, Olena Grishnova, Olga Miroshnychenko
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
