Science, Technologies, Innovations №4(32) 2024, 89-103 р.

http://doi.org/10.35668/2520-6524-2024-4-10

Musina L. A. — PhD in Economics, Leading Researcher of the Department of technological forecasting of scientific and technical activity, State scientific institution “Ukrainian Institute of Scientific and Technical Expertise and Information”, 180, Antonovycha Str., Kyiv, Ukraine, 03150; +38 (050) 351-08-84; musina@ukr.net; ORCID^ 0000-0002-7706-3451; ReseacherID CAF-6964-2022

Kvasha T. K. — Head of the Department, Technological Forecasting of Scientific and Technical Activities Department, State scientific institution “Ukrainian Institute of Scientific and Technical Expertise and Information”, 180, Antonovycha Str., Kyiv, Ukraine, 03150; +38 (044) 521-00-74; ntatyana@ukr.net; kvasha@uintei.kiev.ua; ORCID: 0000-0002-1371-3531; ReseacherID: R-4526-2017

MODERN APPROACHES TO ASSESSING THE IMPACT ON THE ECONOMY AND SOCIETY: TRENDS AND PROBLEMS

Abstract. Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) are powerful drivers of economic diversification and growth, value creation and sustainable development. As geopolitical challenges and crises of the 21st Century intensify, the relevance of methods, criteria and indicators for assessing the STI policies effectiveness is increasing. Based on the results of the analysis of approaches to assessing the STI impact on the economy and society, a conclusion was drawn about the trend of their development from the econometric method and the system of quantitative indicators towards the synthesis of quantitative and qualitative analysis, the combination of patent and bibliometric analyses with thematic studies (case studies) and surveys.
A comprehensive assessment of societal impacts includes a wide range of outcomes: social, cultural, environmental benefits, human health. These are covered by the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). An important prerequisite for the effectiveness of research and innovation (R&I) policy is the transition to standards for assessing the effectiveness of programs and projects accepted in world practice: input resources (input); direct measurable results (outputs), medium-term results (outcomes), impact on the economy and society (impact), efficiency and effectiveness.
The article analyzes the systems for assessing the R&I impact on the economy and society adopted in Australia and the European Union. Common to these countries is a combination of an institutional approach to finance and monitor the implementation of priority development goals through R&I projects, and a comprehensive approach to assessing the direct and indirect economic impact of R&I, supplemented by a qualitative assessing the social and environmental consequences of projects through the analysis of scientific publications and thematic reports of project implementers. An assessing the results of financing projects and programs is carried out according to the defined standards, templates and sets of indicators. The general trend is to complement the main focus on economic value with an emphasis on social needs and sustainability. However, approaches to qualitative, evidence-based assessment of the STI impacts need to be further developed, using the opportunities of digitalizing the information flows about the results and impacts of implemented projects and programs.

Keywords: impact of STI on economy and society, productivity, efficiency, research and innovation, SDGs.

REFERENCES

  1. (2024). Financing for Sustainable Development Report 2024: Financing for Development at a Crossroads. United Nations; Inter-agency Task Force on Financing for Development. New York, Р. 84–185. Retrieved from: https://developmentfinance.un.org/fsdr2024.
  2. (2024). Industrial Development Report 2024. Turning challenges into sustainable solutions. The New Era of Industrial Policy. Vienna. Retrieved from: https://www.unido.org/sites/default/files/unido-publications/2024-06/Industrial%20Development%20Report%202024.pdf.
  3. (2023). OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2023: Enabling Transitions in Times of Disruption. OECDilibrary, 230 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/0b55736e-en.
  4. (2024). In a world in transition, STI policy needs to adapt. Ministerial conference OECD (April 2024). Retrieved from: https://www.oecd-events.org/mm24/en/content/media.
  5. Moreno, G., & Ricard, O. (2024). Science Technology and Innovation Policy Instruments for the Sustainable Development Goals: A Global Outlook. UNESCO. Paris, 133 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54677/NPJX8363.
  6. Kvasha, T. (2023). Sukupna faktorna produktyvnist rehioniv Ukrainy [Total factor productivity of the regions of Ukraine]. Investytsii: praktyka ta dosvid [Investments: practice and experience]. 24, 137–144. DOI: 10.32702/2306 6814.2023.24.137. [in Ukr.].
  7. Hughes, W. (2023). Policy Uses of Economic Multiplier and Impact Analysis. ResearchGate. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227364628.
  8. (2024). Green Growth Indicators 2014. Green Growth Studies, 24 Jun, 144 p. Retrieved from: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/green-growth-indicators-2013_9789264202030-en.
  9. (2024). Navigating New Horizons: A global foresight report on planetary health and human wellbeing. United Nations Environment Programme. Nairobi. Retrieved from: https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/45890.
  10. (2024). The Future of Growth Report 2024. World Economic Forum, 17 January. Retrieved from: https://www.weforum.org/publications/the-future-of-growth-report/.
  11. (2024). Introducing a comprehensive framework for evaluating the societal impact of research. Clarivate, October 2. Retrieved from: https://clarivate.com/academia-government/blog/introducing-a-comprehensive-framework-for-evaluating-the-societal-impact-of-research/.
  12. Grun,R. E. (2006). Monitoring and evaluating projects : a step-by-step primer on monitoring, benchmarking, and impact evaluation (English). HNP discussion paper series. Retrieved from: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/377941468329950501/Monitoring-and-evaluating-projects-a-step-by-step-primer-on-monitoring-benchmarking-and-impact-evaluation.
  13. Gajdusek, M. F.; Marinkovic, I, & Kenzevic, T. (eds.) (2012). RTDI Evaluation Standards – Research, Technological Development and Innovation Evaluation Standards. EVAL-INNO (Fostering Evaluation Competencies in Research, Technology and Innovation in the SEE Region). Retrieved from: https://www.zsi.at/en/object/publication/3639.
  14. Solow, M. (1957). Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function. The Review of Economics and Statistics. 39 (3), 312–320. Retrieved from: https://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/mh5/class/econ489/Solow-Growth-Accounting.pdf.
  15. Kamil, I. (2006). Intelektualna vlasnist – potuzhnyi instrument ekonomichnoho zrostannia [Intellectual property is a powerful tool for economic growth]. Kyiv, 27–32. [in Ukr.].
  16. (2001). Measuring Productivity. OECD Manual. Retrieved from: www.oecd.org.
  17. (2009). Measuring Capital – OECD Manual 2009: Second edition. OECD. Paris. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264068476-en.
  18. (2021). OECD Productivity Statistics database. Methodological Notes. Retrieved from: www.oecd.org.
  19. Barrett, Ph., Hansen, N.-Ja., Natal, J.-M., & Noureldin, D. (2021). Why Basic Science Matters for Economic Growth. Public investment in basic research will pay for itself. IMF BLOG. October 6. Retrieved from: https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2021/10/06/blog-ch3-weo-why-basic-science-matters-for-economic-growth
  20. Gourinchas, P.-O. (2024). As Inflation Recedes, Global Economy Needs Policy Triple Pivot. IMF BLOG. October 22. Retrieved from: https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2024/10/22/as-inflation-recedes-global-economy-needs-policy-triple-pivot.
  21. Susskind, D. (2024). We Must Change the Nature of Growth. International Monetary Fund. Retrieved from: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2024/09/we-must-change-the-nature-of-growth-daniel-susskind.
  22. (2014). Green Growth Indicators 2014. OECD Green Growth Studies. June, 24. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264202030-en.
  23. (2008). SNA Update. Inter-secretariat Working Group on National Accounts. SNA Chapter 2: National accounts and measures of wellbeing and sustainability. Retrieved from: https://unstats.un.org/unsd/nationalaccount/SNAUpdate/2025/chapters.asp
  24. (2017). Work of the Statistical Commission pertaining to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 6. UN, July (A/RES/71/313). Retrieved from: A/RES/71/313: Work of the Statistical Commission pertaining to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (un.org).
  25. Filchenko, D., Pendlebury, D., Quaderi, N., & Adams, J. (2024). A responsible framework for evaluating the societal impact of research. September, 19 Retrieved from: https://clarivate.com/academia-government/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/dlm_uploads/2024/09/ISI_Societal_Impact_Framework_Sept26_2024.pdf.
  26. (2023). Impact assessment of ARC-funded research summary report. A report for the Australian Research Council. ACIL Allen, 15 p. Retrieved from: https://www.arc.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-08/Impact%20assessment%20of%20ARC-funded%20research%20-%20Summary%20report.pdf.
  27. (2023). Impact assessment of ARC‑funded research. Final technical supplement. Report to Australian Research Council. 21 April, P. 35–36.
  28. (2021). Better Regulation Guidelines. European Commission. Brussels, 43 Retrieved from: https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2021-11/swd2021_305_en.pdf.
  29. Notten, A., Sanditov, B., Papageorgiou, H., & Stančiauskas, V. (2022). Study to support the monitoring and evaluation of the Framework Programme for research and innovation along Key Impact Pathways – Indicator methodology and metadata handbook. European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. DOI: 10.2777/44653.
  30. (2021). Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the performance framework for the EU budget under the 2021–2027. MFF, 8 June. Retrieved from: https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/communication-eu-budget-performance-framework-2021-2027_en.
  31. (2021). The design and implementation of mission-oriented innovation policies: a new systemic policy approach to address societal challenges. P.15. Retrieved from: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/the-design-and-implementation-of-mission-oriented-innovation-policies_3f6c76a4-en.
  32. (2023). EU Missions two years on: assessment of progress and way forward. EUROPEAN COMMISSION. Brussels. Retrieved from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX%3A52023DC0457.