At the present stage of the world economic development, countries face the deepening of globalisation processes and strengthening of the interdependence of economies. The events of recent years, which — in one way or another — have affected a significant number of countries around the world, especially the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic, as well as the Russian Federation’s aggression against Ukraine, have generated new challenges for international partnerships. Today, it is extremely important to find mechanisms of adaptation of the national economy to global shocks. This article attempts to highlight the main levers of the mechanism of such adaptation of the country by strengthening its investment attractiveness as one of the main factors of economic growth through international partnerships. Ensuring the investment attractiveness is a scientific and applied task, the solution of which will help to increase the capital and the intensity of innovations.

The full-scale war in Ukraine, which began on Feb. 24, 2022, caused a significant shock to the economic and social spheres of the country, the consequences of which will have prolonged manifestations. Restoration of the resource balance and implementation of the strategy of functioning under the conditions of war in Ukraine currently presuppose extensive partnership relations with many countries of the world. The main current focus of attention, as well as of the financial and material flows, is the defence-industrial complex of Ukraine. However, it is strategically important to maintain and increase the capacity of those sectors of the economy that can continue developing even in martial law.

The most promising investment sites in Ukraine are the agro-industrial complex and the information technology (IT) industry. At the same time, the economic and intellectual potential of Ukraine provides a basis for further search for ways to increase the country’s investment attractiveness given the available and potentially available resources.

The case of Ukraine is quite complex for scientific substantiation, as it covers political, social, economic, environmental, scientific, technical and other aspects of cooperation with European countries and the United States in conditions of a full-scale war. Therefore, within the framework of this study, it is expedient to identify key means of strengthening the country’s investment attractiveness for postwar recovery.

Thus, the purpose of the research is to develop the scientific provisions for increasing the investment attractiveness of countries under the new market conditions from the point of view of the resource-based approach. Researchers have developed a methodological basis for assessing the level of investment attractiveness, which — in combination with the relevant developments of international organisations — provides the scientific basis for identifying reserves for improving the investment climate of a country. At the same time, the problems involved in increasing the level of investment attractiveness of countries considering the available, limited and potentially available resources remain to be solved.

For Ukraine, it is extremely important to study the issue of increasing investment attractiveness under conditions of military conflict on the basis of postwar developments. It is important to determine the direction of intensification of the country’s innovation activity as one of the key stimulators of the inflow of financial resources. Thus, the definition of strategic priorities of Ukraine and possible centres of innovative development is the key to rapid recovery after the resolution of the military conflict.

The Concept of Investment

Attractiveness The essence of the term ‘investment’ is that it is an acquisition of fixed assets, intangible assets, corporate rights and securities in exchange for funds or property. Attracting investment reduces the depreciation of fixed assets (in Ukraine, it averages 65%) and, therefore, worth in the coming years to promote investment inflows to achieve higher levels of economic development (Tolstov & Tsybulskyi, 2014; Hrytsaienko & Hrytsaienko, 2017).

The issue of ensuring the investment attractiveness of economic systems is well developed and highlighted in the scientific literature. The multifaceted concept of ‘investment attractiveness’ got conceptual identification through a number of scientific approaches. The problems of ensuring the investment attractiveness of a country have been discussed in the scientific articles of Birnleitner (2014), Horna, Ishchuk and Khalilova (2017), Tocar (2018), Furdychko and Pikhotska (2018), Churuta (2018), Usov (2018), Vydobora (2018) and others. In these works, the researchers define the essence of the concept of ‘investment attractiveness’, identify stimulants and barriers of this characteristic at the micro and macro levels, as well as propose tools for improving the investment climate of a country, in particular by achieving and maintaining human capital, intellectual capital and the macroeconomic potential.

It should be noted that since the concept under study is complex and multifaceted, differences in understanding its content, which can be traced to the works of different authors, are justified. Thus, depending on those factors of investment attractiveness that are considered key, the authors emphasise the various system-building components and the importance of investment attractiveness as an analytical category. Analysis of the scientific sources gives an opportunity to summarise the main approaches to explain the essence of the investment attractiveness concept. Within these approaches (Table 1), emphasis is placed on one or another key component of investment attractiveness or on the role of this characteristic of a country for the possibility of its economic growth.

According to a general view in accordance with Rzaev and Vakulova (2016), the investment attractiveness of a country is a set of political, legal, economic and social conditions (factors, elements) that provide and promote the investment activities of domestic and foreign investors and, accordingly, determine the degree of investment risk. In addition, investment attractiveness is a generalised characteristic of a set of social, economic, organisational, legal, political and sociocultural prerequisites that determine the attractiveness of the state for investment and is the basis for the investment climate.

Dobrova and Sydorenko (2018) explain the essence of this concept as various political, economic, legal, institutional, socioeconomic and environmental factors and conditions that determine the behaviour of current and potential investment entities to invest in the development of the region and ensure the stability of investment activities of domestic and foreign investors. The mentioned definitions are the most general and reflect the diversity of investment attractiveness of the country, its variability and subordination to various external and internal factors. Among such factors, economic and political ones play an important role, as they affect the institutional stability of the region (country) and, consequently, determine the level of risk of a potential investment project.

Development of mechanisms to increase the level of investment attractiveness of the country by any of the approaches presented in Table 1 may be based on the following types of pre-assessment: self-assessment, independent evaluation, or a combination of these two species. Further formulations of the authors are based on the fact that the priority type of assessment of the country’s investment climate is external (independent), which considers the opinion of the direct object of potential investment — business in the country (represented by directors and/or business owners). Among the world’s methods of assessing the country’s investment attractiveness are the most common ratings: Institutional Investor, Euromoney, Business Environment Risk Intelligence (BERI), Moody’s Investor Service, Transparency International, World Bank’s Investment Climate Survey (ICS) and others. The concept of ‘investment attractiveness’ is meaningfully related to such concepts as ‘investment climate’, ‘investment risk’, ‘investment activity’ and ‘investment image’. Usov (2018) summarises the dependence of definitions and the relevant processes using the logical and structural scheme and comes to the reasonable conclusion that (a) an investment climate of a region is not a set of the investment climates of industries; and (b) the investment climate of industries is not a set of the investment climate of enterprise-participants.

The identity of the concepts of ‘investment attractiveness’ and ‘investment image’ found in the scientific literature, for example in the paper by ?huruta (2018, p. 73), which, in our opinion, is not quite correct, deserves special mention. Investment image characterises the reputation of the country and its investment history, i.e. a set of successful investment projects. Instead, a territory that does not have a significant investment history, but that may be characterised by the emergence of favourable conditions to meet the interests of potential investors who make decisions, may be attractive. Within this study, the scientific substantiation of the main categories is based on the resource-based approach mentioned in Table 1, according to which the investment attractiveness is equated with the constraints and opportunities that determine the level of the investment development of a country.

There are opportunities to use the available scarce resources, as well as the ability to create competitive advantages through the effective realisation of opportunities, which in turn determines the main macroeconomic indicators of the country and its economic potential. Moreover, in this context, the intellectual potential of the country, which determines the level of its innovation activity, and hence the ability to attract foreign capital for the implementation of innovative developments, is of great importance. The main difficulties in performing an analysis of the country’s competitiveness reserves from the perspective of a potential investor are the following:

• availability of different approaches for defining the concept of a country’s investment attractiveness;
• the possibility of applying different assessment methods depending on the approach chosen;
• a large number of indicators used in the evaluation process are qualitative indicators that are difficult to quantify.

Overcoming these obstacles can be seen in the following steps: to clarify the essence of the concept of investment attractiveness of the country in the chosen approach; to summarise the criteria for investing in an attractive country; to justify the factors that increase the investment attractiveness of the country.

Factors Determining the Investment Attractiveness of Ukraine

In the scientific literature, there is a large list of factors that determine a country’s investment attractiveness. It is common to divide such factors into hard and soft ones (for example Husarova, 2017; Vasil’ev & Ivanchenco, 2016). The influence of hard factors cannot be avoided or changed in the short term. This group includes geographical location, availability of natural resources, innovation potential, quality of labour force and market conditions. As a rule, such factors are subject to quantitative measurement, and the relevant data are reflected in official statistical databases.

Soft factors are affected, and their effects can be changed in a short period of time. The negative effect of such factors may be manifested in additional barriers to investment. The definition of such factors is subjectivism, as it is often a matter of perception of the economic environment by potential investors. Expert methods are used, in particular, for quantitative evaluation. Soft factors include business climate, efficiency of state bodies, level of corruption, tax pressure, successful experience in implementing investment projects and trust in the government.

Following the methodology of the 2020 Global Foreign Investment Country Attractiveness index (GFICA index; the developer of the methodology is Prof. Riadh Ben Jelili), there are several groups of factors that determine the ability of a country to attract investment into its internal markets, namely:

• macroeconomic, financial and governmental factors;
• market potential, resources and the infrastructure;
• differentiation and agglomeration economic effects.

The total number of different factors considered in 2020 is >50. According to the last GFICA ranking, the top 10 countries and outsider countries are as follows (Table 2).

As shown in Table 2, the USA, Switzerland, Chad and Central African Republic do not show changes in their positions during the period of 2015–2020. The USA, as the leader, may be considered as the country that has a pattern of the most attractive country for foreign direct investment (FDI). This means that this country is the best by such FDI determinants as gross domestic product (GDP) Growth Volatility, Average Inflation Rate, Political Stability, Absence of Violence, Trade and Transport Infrastructure and many other factors. Of course, the decision of a particular investor to invest depends not only on the rankings of the country but mainly on the ability to predict the value and the behaviour of the object of investment (the relevant business). Moreover, analysis of the location of the most innovative companies makes it easy to conclude the reason for the attractiveness of the USA. Among the most innovative companies, according to FastCompany (2021), are Moderna, Inc. (biotechnology; USA), Pfizer-BioNTech (biotechnology; USA), SpaceX (aerospace, manufacturing, space travel and transportation; USA) and others.

As can be seen from Table 2, Ukraine’s position hardly changes. A more detailed analysis of the formation of factors of investment attractiveness of this country, given the escalation of the military-economic conflict of 2014–2022, which may affect the ability to attract investment on the basis of resource economy, i.e. in material production, mining, agriculture and other areas of the national economy, is worth investigation.

In summary, in the scientific literature, there is a common quantitative approach for determining the factors of investment attractiveness, which involves the allocation of areas and indicators to be quantified and on the basis of which it is possible to perform economic modelling.

For instance, Konakova (2017, pp. 38–39) identifies a number of factors that contribute to attracting investment to the national economy of Ukraine. Among the aggregated factors are economic development, development of small business and trade, provision of resources, institutional environment, research potential, staffing, healthcare potential, education potential, income and expenditure of the population. Yelnikov? (2020), studying the attractiveness of the regions of Ukraine, identifies three vectors of their development, within which the relevant factors are determined, namely economic, managerial and environmental. An integrated assessment is performed using quantitative indicators in the article (Yelnikov?, 2020, p. 66).

Horna et al. (2017, pp.146–147) present the results of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) analysis of Ukraine in order to identify incentives and barriers to investment inflows. The study also highlights the regression model of the dependence of investment attractiveness of the country on economic, political, legal and sociocultural factors. Among the factors included in the model, the most important is the level of prosperity and human progress. The authors emphasise that increase in military events reduces the value of the investment index of Ukraine.

It should be emphasised that Ukraine is characterised by special processes of innovative development, which — in our opinion — is one of the main factors of investment attractiveness. The study conducted at the National Technical University of Ukraine ‘Kyiv Polytechnic Institute’ (Kukharuk, Skorobogatova & Pyshnograiev, 2017) shows that in Scandinavian and Asian countries, the relationships between the level of macroeconomic infrastructure, the degree of economic freedom and innovation activity are direct and tight; in Western Europe, the impact of the economic freedom on the innovation activity is reasonably low, and the influence of the macroeconomic infrastructure is significant. The article describes the specific relationships of these mentioned indicators in a group of post-socialistic states, according to which, Bulgaria and Ukraine differ significantly from Poland and the remainder of the total sample, as the economic conditions of these countries and their innovation activity are in inverse dependence. In other words, according to the study, the deteriorating economic situation in Ukraine may act as a booster of innovative ideas.

The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine has approved an action plan for 2021–2023 to implement the Strategy for the Development of Innovation for the period up to 2030. According to this document, the main barriers of the innovation development of Ukraine are as follows:

• imperfection of institutions, including the political, regulatory and business environment;
• underdeveloped infrastructure, including innovation, as the percentage of gross capital formation as a percentage of the GDP, environmental sustainability, accessibility and quality of e-Government (the use of information and communication technologies [ICT] combined with organisational change and the application of new skills) remain low in public administration for the implementation of public services and democratic processes).

According to the action plan determined by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine within the framework of the implementation of this strategy, a number of measures were to be taken in the first quarter of 2022. Unfortunately, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has hindered the fulfilment of the set tasks.

Official statistics on the volume of investment flows in Ukraine for the past 20 years are presented in Table 3.

Table 3 shows that the negative dynamics fall on the years of escalation of the military-political conflict in eastern Ukraine, as well as in March 2020, which was the beginning of severe quarantine restrictions in connection with the global COVID-19 pandemic. Forecasting investment levels using mathematical tools will provide results with significant deviation. The first reason for this is the heterogeneous dataset [the squared coefficient of variation is 0.72, with a permissible error of 0.33 according to Yerina and Paliian (2010)]. The second reason for the difficulty in forecasting is that much of Ukraine is a zone of active hostilities (eastern and southern regions), which gives grounds to argue about the unfavourable investment climate not only in these regions but also in other regions of Ukraine in terms of the resource-based approach. At the same time, the development of a mechanism to intensify investment in Ukraine may involve the selection of an innovation vector of development and attraction of financial resources through the financing of project activities in Ukraine. This statement is based on the key issue of the postwar recovery of Ukraine, namely: the necessity to create new urban infrastructure, new energy and industry, adaptive state institutions, a progressive education system, etc., instead of rebuilding the old infrastructure and public administration system.

Innovation Vector as a Determinant of Postwar Recovery of Ukraine

Implementation of an innovation model for economic growth is a promising tool for the strategic management of Ukraine’s competitiveness. Financing and implementation of innovation projects enables developed countries to gain significant economic effects, including those from the commercialisation of innovations. The issue of innovative development of Ukraine as a factor of its competitiveness is an urgent scientific and applied task. In particular, the innovation strategy of Ukraine provides for implementation of the following measures (Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, 2019):

• creation of a favourable regulatory framework for business entities engaged in innovation activities;
• development of innovation infrastructure, methodological and consulting support, as well as expansion of ties of domestic scientists and inventors with foreign enterprises;
• increasing the capacity level, which is realised through both cultural and educational activities, increasing innovation culture and through educational activities aimed at ensuring successful careers of young people after graduation in higher education in one of the following selected areas: starting own business, working in an enterprise that meets the modern technological level or scientific (teaching) work.

At the same time, in addition to the war, there are systemic obstacles in the country, which are considered by scientists. Exploring the problems and paradoxes of innovation in Ukraine, Fedulova (2020) emphasises that the powerful innovation potential of the state is not realised in Ukraine but works in the economies of other countries (an example is the IT industry with about 200,000 specialists involved and revenues of $5 billion per year, providing an opportunity to develop innovative products, which is unfortunately being implemented outside Ukraine).

Despite a number of obstacles to supporting the innovation model, Ukraine is also characterised by initiatives to develop innovation activity. Special attention should be paid to the Association of Industrial Automation (created in 2011, with totally 54 members), whose mission is to develop Ukraine as a high-tech state and an equal participant in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. The Association works as a non-government and non-profit organisation uniting legal entities (Table 4)

Universities play an important role in the chain of knowledge sharing and innovation. Although representatives of the Association have repeatedly stressed the availability of reserves to increase the innovative activity of universities, Ukraine is currently implementing international partnership projects, active work on which continues despite the COVID-19 pandemic and war. An example of such an activity is an international project CPEA-LT-2017/10047 ‘NTNU-KPI Collaboration within Industry 4.0 Education’.

The overall objective of this project is to offer attractive education within the Sustainable Manufacturing concept through the exchange of knowledge between the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) and the National Technical University of Ukraine ‘Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute’ (KPI). This is done by strengthening the existing cooperation between the institutions and establishing new contacts among both staff and students. The project started through sharing information and experience on improvement of already existing courses and programmes in manufacturing topics related to Industry 4.0. The cooperation seeks to develop modern teaching methods (learning factories and simulation) and a programme to achieve better gender balance for staff and students in technical studies. NTNU collaborates with

SINTEF — one of Europe’s largest independent research organisations — to enable interaction with industry and may further leverage cooperation with the NCE Raufoss ‘Kvinnearena’ programme on female role models, seminars and targeted promotion. The introduction of learning factories will change how technology, processes and (operations) management is taught and will open up new possibilities for groundbreaking research.

Another promising research field is the Science for Peace and Security (North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO]-funded) programme, with the following topics: (a) Defence against chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) agents; and (b) environmental security. Fundraising for long-term projects in a protracted war is especially important in order to provide employment for scientists and to develop ideas that will contribute to the post-crisis recovery of the country.

Conclusions

Summing up the research material, it is possible to conclude that under conditions of crisis, uncertainty and especially war (as in the case of Ukraine), the old models of economic development need to be revised. Occupation of areas rich in resources and potentially attractive for investment makes it impossible to develop a resource-oriented approach to enhancing the competitiveness of a country. Summarising the analysis of scientific literature, ratings, materials of independent organisations, as well as examples of activity that has not been significantly suppressed by economic and social shocks (pandemic, aggression by another state), we highlight the following determinants of Ukraine’s investment attractiveness:

1. Increasing the level of transparency of economic development processes and further integration into the European Community on a partnership basis.

2. Adherence to the principles of the innovative model of economic development, which should promote investment in international partnership projects in priority areas of scientific and technical development.

3. Transition from a resource-oriented economy to a human-oriented and idea-oriented economy, in which innovation is a key lever of the mechanism.

4. Development of a network of participants to promote the ideas of the Industry 4.0 movement to share experiences, generate solutions, harmonise the legal field of intellectualisation and automation of the production of key industrial goods.

5. Strengthening the applied component of education in Ukraine by intensifying the participation of universities in international grant programmes, which will provide an opportunity to train a new generation of professionals using advanced learning technologies for innovation.

From the point of view of the resource-based approach to the identification of reserves to increase the level of investment attractiveness of Ukraine, it is advisable to specify ‘opportunities’, among which are the cooperation between youth and business, increasing the number of scientists, standardising the market structure and innovation activity. The promising field for further research is the development of the scientific statement regarding the assessment of the level of the investment attractiveness of different countries according to the specifics of their functioning.

Acknowledgements

The authors express their respect and gratitude to the governments of European countries, in particular the Republic of Poland, for their significant efforts and support of Ukrainian citizens in difficult times for Ukraine. Opportunities for academic mobility for scientists and their involvement in international research will contribute to the accumulation of innovative potential for postwar reconstruction of the state.

The authors thank the Association of Industrial Automation of Ukraine for educational work regarding Industry 4.0 processes and challenges and for help in developing innovative projects by facilitating the cooperation of youth, government and business.

The authors thank the partner organisation within the CPEA-LT2017/10047 ‘NTNU-KPI Collaboration within Industry 4.0 Education’ project — Norwegian University of Science and Technology — for the efficient collaboration and support.

References

1. Birnleitner, H. (2014). Attractiveness of countries for foreign direct investments from the macro-economic perspective. Proceedings of FIKUSZ ’14 Symposium for Young Researchers, pp. 29–40. Budapest, Hungary.

2. Bulkot, O. (2020). Method of analysis of international attractiveness of the investment environment of the country. Black Sea Economic Studies, 54, 16–22.

3. Chaika, K. (2019). Comparative analysis of the representativeness of foreign investment ratings. Problems and Prospects of Economics and Management, 4(20), 105–110 .

4. Churuta, I. (2018). Investment ratings and their impact on investment country image. Herald of Economics, 3, 70–78.

5. Crawford, V. (2019). 7 ways business can be agents for peace. World Economic Forum. Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/05/7-ways-business-can-be-agentsfor-peace/.

6. Dlihach, A. (2022). Ukraine of the future — A view from 2030. Ukrainian Pravda, 2022, March 24. Retrieved from https://www.epravda.com.ua/columns/2022/03/24/684560/

7. Dobrova, N., & Sydorenko, O. (2018). Investment attractiveness of Ukrainian regions as a fundamental for sustainable economic development of the country. Scientific Bulletin of Odessa National Economic University, 5(257), 51–66.

8. Dulles, E. (1942). War and investment opportunities: An historical analysis. The American Economic Review, 32(1), Part 2, Supplement, Papers and Proceedings of the Fifty-fourth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association (1942, March), 112–128, Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/1815102.

9. Edelsten, S. (2022). Investing in a time of war. Financial Times, 2022, March 2. Retrieved from https://www.ft.com/content/8962af33-1a6e-476d-b53d-904626dc9de3

10. Ernst, U. (2002). Investment and competitiveness: A strategic management perspective for Ukraine. OECD-Ukraine Forum. Ukraine: Kyiv, 2002, February 21–22, 9. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/investment/investmentfordevelopment/1833042.pdf

11. Evaluation Approaches. Mechanism of Economic Regulation, 4, 119–128. Retrieved from https://mer.fem.sumdu.edu.ua/content/acticles/issue_43/Oleksii_V_Lyulyov_Bogdan_A_ MoskalenkoAssessment_of_Country_Investment_Attractiveness_Evaluation_Approach es.pdf

12. FastCompany (2021). The world’s most innovative companies. Retrieved from https://www.fastcompany.com/90603436/the-worlds-most-innovative-companies-2021

13. Fedulova, L. (2020). Ukrainian innovative development: problems and paradoxes. University Economic Bulletin, 44, 42–49.

14. Fernández, A., Schmitt-Grohé, S., & Uribe, M. (2016). World shocks, world prices, and business cycles: an empirical investigation. USA: National Bureau of Economic Research (28p). Retrieved from https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w22833/ w22833.pdf.

15. Furdychko, L., & Pikhotska, O. (2018). Adverse influence of investment climate on investment attractiveness of Ukraine. Financial and Credit Activity: Problems of Theory and Practice, 3(26), 281–291.

16. Geleverya, Y. M., & Serhiienko, Y. I. (2020). The investment attractiveness of regions as the basis of the country’s sustainable development. Business Inform, 4, 112–117.

17. Global Foreign Direct Investment Country Attractiveness Index 2020. Retrieved from http://www.fdiattractiveness.com/ranking-2020/.

18. Horna, M., Ishchuk, & Khalilova, T. (2017). Conditions and factors of formation of investment attractiveness of the countries of Eastern Europe. International Economic Policy, 2(27), 137–155. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/197266227.pdf.

19. Hrytsaienko, H., & Hrytsaienko, M. (2017). Investment attractiveness of Ukraine. Agricultural and Resource Economics, 3(1), 80–93.

20. Husarova, M. (2017). The impact of “hard” and “soft” factors of competitiveness in the investment attractiveness of the country. Economic bulletin of Zaporizhzhia State Engineering Academy, 1–2(7), 47–50.

21. Khaietska, O. (2020). Ways to increase the international investment attractiveness of Ukraine. Economics, Finance, Management: Current Issues of Science and Practice, 3, 114–130.

22. Konakova, E. (2017). Factors of influence on investment attractiveness of Ukraine. Problems and Prospects of Economics and Management, 4(12), 34–41.

23. Kukharuk, A., Skorobogatova, N., & Pyshnograiev, I. (2017). Identifying the relationships between the level of countries’ economic development and innovation activity. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 4, 301–314.

24. Kuzmenko, O., & Kasaeva, J. (2019). Research into the role of information technologies in ensuring the investment attractiveness and socio-economic development of the country. Investments: Practice and Experience, 16, 5–15.

25. Lyulyov, O., & Moskalenko, B. (2019). Assessment of country investment attractiveness evaluation approaches. Mechanism of Economic Regulation, 4, 119–128.

26. Maslak O., & Talover, V. (2016). Complex assessment of country’s investment attractiveness. Economic Forum, 3, 51–59.

27. Minfin Media (2022). Foreign direct investment (FDI) in Ukraine. Retrieved from https://index.minfin.com.ua/ua/economy/fdi/

28. Moore, R. (2021). Emerging from war: Public policy and patterns of foreign direct investment recovery in postwar environments. Journal of International Business Policy, 4, 455–475. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1057/s42214-02000084-4.pdf

29. Provolotska, O., Voloshina, S., & Hura, O. (2018). The place of Ukraine in world rankings as an indicator of its investment attractiveness. Problems of the Economy, 1(35), 108–114.

30. Rzaev, G. I., & Vakulova, V. O. (2016). Methods of assessing investment attractiveness at country level and prospects for their use in economic analysis. Bulletin of Khmelnytsky National University, 3(1), 137–143.

31. Shemaeva, L. (2019). Development of public-private partnership in measuring Ukraine’s indicators in global rankings. Problems of the Economy, 2, 81–88. Retrieved from https://www.problecon.com/export_pdf/problems-of-economy-2019-2_0-pages-81_88.pdf.

32. Strategy of development of the sphere of innovation activity for the period up to 2030. Document 526–2019-p. Adoption on July 10, 2019. Ukraine: Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/en/526-2019- %D1%80#n12.

33. Tarabukina, O. (2010). Investment attractiveness of the territory as a motivating factor of investment activity. Investments: Practice and Experience, 12, 8–11.

34. Tocar, S. (2018). Determinants of foreign direct investment: a review. Review of Economic & Business Studies, 11(1), 165–196.

35. Tolstov, V., & Tsybulskyi, L. (2014). Approaches to assessing the attractiveness of countries and regions for investment formation and business climate. Scientific and Technical Information, 3, 13–19.

36. Usov, M. (2018). The essence of investment attractiveness, as a way of attracting investment resources. Efektyvna ekonomika, 8. Retrieved from http://www.economy. nayka.com.ua/pdf/8_2018/153.pdf.

37. Vasil’ev, S., & Ivanchenco, N. (2016). Factors and directions of improvement of investment attractiveness of agricultural production. Investments: Practice and Experience, 9, 46–49.

38. Voitko, S., & Shatkovsky, A. V. (2013). Indicative approach to assessing investment attractiveness of countries: The sphere of renewable energy. Business Inform, 7, 141–148.

39. Vydobora, V. (2018). Ways of improving investment attractiveness of Ukraine in conditions of socio-economic uncertainty. Scientific Bulletin [Odessa National Economic University], 2, 57–66.

40. Yelnikov?, Yu. (2020). Ranking of the Ukraine regions by the level of responsible investments attractiveness. Investments: Practice and Experience, 17–18, 63–68.

41. Yemets, O., & Voloshynovych, Kh. (2016). The investment attractiveness of regions under economic globalization. Eastern Europe: Economy, Business and Management, 4(4), 132–137.

42. Yerina, A., & Paliian, Z. (2010). Statistics (351 p). Kyiv, Ukraine: KNEU.

Network analysis has many applications in various research areas and fields. A broad stream of network research has been developed in the social sciences as social network analysis.¹ Various concepts of networks refer to the connections, relationships that are the basic feature of each network. They focus on the shape of the social structure, the position of individuals in these structures and the resulting benefits. It is worth mentioning that there is no single, universal network model. Each is unique, and its formation depends on many factors, including the external world, i.e. the environment.² Networks can have different organizational forms from the least to the most formalized. A summary of selected organizational forms of networks is presented in Table 1.³

The above comparison allows systemizing and organizing various forms of network cooperation including the models presented in the article below. According to the author, the two presented networks are examples of different degrees of formalization. On the basis of the above Table, the Łukasiewicz Research Network presents the second degree of formalization, while POLTRIN’s network presents the first degree. Moreover, according to the author, the typology can be a starting point for new forms of cooperation between research institutes in Poland. The article is an attempt to answer the question whether the organizational model of institutes’ networking in Poland and Europe is an appropriate organizational form for these institutions influencing the increase of their competitiveness in the economy.

Poland still occupies a low position in studies showing the innovativeness of European Union (EU) countries. The level of the Summary Innovation Index for Poland is lower than the average for all EU countries. In the Innovation Union Scoreboard (IUS)⁴ published in 2019, Poland was ranked fourth from the end. In comparison with the results of previous years, from weak innovators we advanced to the group of moderate innovators.

Public research institutes are diverse and complex scientific entities. Each has a unique management and organizational culture. They operate in the areas of industry, transportation, energy, medicine, agriculture, public services, infrastructure and defense. Legal framework and organizational framework for research institutes in Poland is set by the Act of 30 April 2010 on research institutes.⁵ In the meaning of Article 1(1) they are state organizational units, legally, organizationally, economically and financially separated, which conduct research and development work aimed at implementation and practical application.⁶ The most important objectives to be achieved by research institutes include:

• conducting scientific research and development work oriented towards implementation.

The research institutes are to perform the following activities:

• conducting scientific research and development work aimed at implementation,
• conducting information activities: dissemination of the results of work, training, scientific, technical and economic information, ?
• teaching activities (specialist training courses), post-graduate and doctoral studies,⁷
• protection of intellectual property,
• standardization, certification and approval activities.

Research institutes are essential in creating and building a Knowledge-Based Economy (KBE) in Poland. They have the intellectual and research potential to support the national economy. It is the only sector of science that has been thoroughly restructured. Consolidation has been the main direction of restructuring . The table below shows the downward trend in the number of research institutes over the last thirty years.

Based on the above summary, it can be concluded that in the years of systemic transformation there has been a clear downward trend in the number of institutes (Figure 1). Their share in the total number of entities conducting research and development activity in Poland has been systematically falling. In 2009–2013, this decline is no longer so rapid, the number of institutes remains at a level of around 120, with minor isolated cases of disbandment, consolidation or privatization of selected entities. It can be assumed that the period of turbulent changes has been survived by the “strongest” units, cooperating with enterprises — units whose research activity is in demand on the market. According to the author, the institutes currently operating owe their survival of the turbulent times largely due to sound policies pursued by the management and changes introduced by individual governments who recognize the necessity of the existence of public research organizations and their important role in the development of an innovative, knowledge-based economy. A clear shift in the perception of the importance of research and development activities took place when Poland joined the European Union, when it became apparent that one of the Community’s top priorities is the creation of a competitive, modern economy. It is impossible to achieve these assumptions without high expenditures on research and development.⁸

The consolidation of research institutes in Poland has been one of the solutions, aimed both at avoiding the liquidation of weaker units and at increasing the effectiveness of R&D work conducted by these organizations. However, the question remains open as to what form the planned consolidation or cooperation of institutes should take?

Between 2016 and 2020, many changes could be observed in Poland regarding the functioning of these units. In December 2016, the law amending The law on research institutes was enacted. Its amendment regulates the procedures for the appointment and dismissal of directors of state research institutes and the composition of their scientific councils, including the method of appointing the chairman of the council and his deputies.⁹ Subsequently, The act on research institutes¹⁰ was amended, a new Constitution for Science¹¹ was adopted and the Łukasiewicz Research Network was established.¹² The purpose of the network is to carry out research projects including international ones, and to commercialize the results of work. Apart from the basic activity, affiliated institutes may also produce unique research apparatus and materials, conduct metrological, standardization and certification activity, develop prototypes of new technological solutions, conduct courses and staff training, and, if necessary, other activity related to their nature. An important aspect of the functioning of the institutes is their activity for the benefit of society, therefore, among the institutes’ tasks is also the popularization of science and knowledge of new technologies.¹³

A smaller POLTRIN network was also established to strengthen the potential of research institutes to carry out large research projects both for the development of the economy and the competitiveness of enterprises in the area of land transport.¹⁴ Currently, in Poland we have 110 research institutes, including 33 belonging to the Łukasiewicz Research Network and 3 institutes belonging to the POLTRIN network.

Networking of research institutes in selected European countries

Analyzing the idea of networking research institutes in Poland, it is necessary to briefly characterize this trend in the EU. In most EU countries, research institutes are public organizations and their functioning is inscribed in the binding structure of the particular national system of financing science. In Western European countries, institutes are associated within thematic groups which form a network of specialized institutions.

Networking of such institutions will be presented below on the example of research institutes functioning in two selected European countries — Germany and France.

In Germany, the equivalent of Polish research institutes are the institutes associated in the Fraunhofer Society. It is Europe’s largest nonprofit organization involved in applied research and its implementation in industry. The German association disseminates and performs applied research that is useful for private and public enterprises and benefits the whole society. The organization was founded in 1949 and brings together 72 German research institutes (Fraunhofer-Institute) representing more than eighty research sectors. More than 70% of its research income comes from contracts with industry and publicly funded projects.¹⁵ The network’s offerings are aimed at the following target groups:

• companies that want to restructure their market position through a new approach to their competitive environment or their internal processes and resources,
• companies seeking to optimize their information logistics through the implementation of in-company and inter-company information and communication systems,
• companies aiming at optimizing information logistics through the implementation of in-company and inter-company information and communication systems,
• companies involved in the development and distribution of innovative products that want to sustainably increase their technology and innovation capacity intermediary organizations such as: chambers of commerce and industry, trade associations,
• social partners and public sector institutions that want to contribute to the development of innovative ideas for standards and regulations or to participate in training and further education.

The research institutes are located throughout the country. The functioning of the individual units in the association is based on decentralization in management and autonomy of the units. The institutes cooperate closely with industry and universities. The organizational structure enables direct technology transfer. For the institutes within the association is important both the implementation of contract research for companies and the public sphere, as well as consultations, expertise, knowledge exchange and staff mobility. The association has considerable autonomy in management. The state administration does not interfere in the selection of research projects, and the evaluation of results is based on the overall contribution to the German economy. The government has some level of power in the
selection of the president, but less than institutes in other countries, since the board members come from both industry and science. In budgetary terms, the state only provides a core fund of 1/3 of the total R&D project budget. Another 2/3 must come from industry or other sources such as the European Union. This is a stringent criterion for evaluating the performance of R&D institutes. Half of the contract research comes from large companies and the other half from SMEs. The institute manages a database of alumni. Many graduates contact the association and form partnerships with the companies they currently work for. The institute collaborates with local industry and universities.

Furthermore, as the knowledge network becomes more globalized, the association has established branches in the USA, Japan and China, and cooperates with excellent foreign entities (companies, universities, research and technology organizations).¹⁶ The Fraunhofer Institute remains the leader among German research institutions in terms of the annual number of patent applications and industrial property rights. In 2019, 623 patent applications were filed.¹⁷

CARNOT is a national multidisciplinary network, founded in 2006, bringing together 29 French R&D institutes and laboratories and 9 affiliated research units.¹⁸ In 2019, the CARNOT network reported a 3.9% increase in R&D contracts compared to previous years. The units in the network represent about 15% of the national research and laboratory base and employ 26,000 scientists. The French Ministry of Science and Research directs and oversees the CARNOT network system. The National Research Agency (L’Agence Nationale de la Recherche ANR) is responsible for managing funding, structure and administration. It is a government entity created in 2007, functioning as a research funding agency with the aim of increasing research projects in all scientific fields. Among ANR’s main tasks, we can include:

• stimulating the development of basic and applied research and innovation,
• supporting partnership between public and private sectors,
• promoting effective technology transfer to the economic sector.

Implemented projects are selected through competitions based on the criteria of scientific quality and potential application in the business sector. Each research institute associated in the network has its own legal separation and competences in specific research areas. The CARNOT brand is awarded by the Minister for Higher Education and Research to those institutes that cooperate effectively with
representatives of the business sector and local communities.¹⁹ The brand is intended to promote partnerships in the research sector and to develop its cooperation with the small and medium-sized enterprises sector. A single entity joins the network by means of an open competition. After a positive evaluation, it undertakes to comply with the conditions and obligations contained in the rights and duties of the network. The Board of Directors consists of 15 representatives elected from among the CARNOT institutes. The network’s activities are financed by contributions paid by individual institutes and grants from the government administrations of the various ministries, local authorities and partners involved in promoting research and innovation.

Public funding is mostly used for specific purposes (e.g. conferences, information meetings, promotion, etc.).²⁰

The research and financial successes of both network organizations prove that creating networks of cooperating research units is one of the factors of increasing the innovativeness of the country. Such solutions allow for greater knowledge flow and technology transfer. Scientific institutions and entrepreneurs have faster access to knowledge and research results as well as to research infrastructure, shorter time of new technologies implementation, wider didactic offer, possibility to conduct multidisciplinary projects.

Research institutes in social and economic environment in Poland

The contemporary social and economic situation is characterized by complexity and changeability of the processes occurring in it. Research institutes must show particular market activity in order to meet the requirements of the market economy. Commitment to the development of creative and innovative state policy means investments in modern research infrastructure, modern laboratories, direct transfer of knowledge and

technology to the economy. Research institutes operating in a free market economy, should, to an increasing extent, be open for business and adapt their offer to specific market needs. The activity of these entities undoubtedly creates an opportunity to eliminate disproportions in applied research and development works between Poland and Western European
countries. Currently, many of them are an important source of scientific and technological knowledge. However, research institutes are very
heterogeneous. On one hand, the potential of some units, starting from the 1990s, has been gradually shrinking, on the other hand, many institutes have won international prizes and awards, successfully participate in research programs. It is worth noting here that before the state created conditions for cooperation and obtaining subsidies, many institutes had been independently seeking external contacts. The creation of thematic networks and bilateral agreements testify to the resilience of their activities and contradict the thesis that many units should be liquidated or privatized.²¹

Research institutes play an extremely important role in building modern, positive relations between science and business. They are closest to the economy due to the tasks they perform, i.e. conducting development and industrial research focused on implementation. Due to the fact that research institutes are a set of heterogeneous institutions operating in different areas of the economy, it is difficult to unequivocally assess their links and direct effectiveness of their impact on the economy. It is worth noting that despite low and decreasing subsidies from the state budget, institutes are one of the most important sources of obtaining funds from orders from entrepreneurs. However, the scope of this cooperation is still insufficient. The reason for poor cooperation between business and institutes is the lack of incentives for entrepreneurs and huge bureaucratic barriers, which make cooperation difficult.²² With this in mind, the Ministry of Science and Higher Education is trying to create certain facilitations and special programs for research institutions, which are supposed to intensify cooperation with the economy. A good example of these activities are projects announced by the National Centre for Research and Development, where the so-called scientific-industrial consortia are preferred. Another example is the Constitution for Business introduced in 2018. Constitution for Business, i.e. a package of laws aimed at reforming economic law to serve the development of entrepreneurship and
innovation.²³ Additionally, the establishment of scientific networks bringing together research institutes was initiated.

Legal and organizational framework of operation of Łukasiewicz and POLTRIN networks — comparative analysis

Established in our country, in 2019, the Łukasiewicz Research Network is the third largest research network in Europe. It currently gathers 33 Polish institutes²⁴ divided into specific research groups. The Network was created by incorporating a part (mostly subordinated to the Ministry of Entrepreneurship) of currently operating research institutes that have adequate potential to achieve the purpose of the Network’s activities. It is a structure which has considerable autonomy in the performance of tasks set out in the Act.²⁵ The Łukasiewicz Centre is responsible for planning and coordination of research work carried out in the institutes. Additional tasks of the institutes include: production of unique research equipment, metrological, standardization and certification activity, development of new prototypes and technological solutions.

Affiliated institutes may also conduct training, workshops and courses for entrepreneurs. The activity for the benefit of society is important. The institutes operating within the network maintain separate legal personality, act in their own name and on their own account. The activities of the network are evaluated by the minister responsible for higher education and science. Currently, the network operates in the area of four research groups: intelligent mobility, digital transformation, health and sustainable economy. The Łukasiewicz is the first in Poland and the third largest in Europe integrated network of research institutes with technical, substantive and organizational facilities to conduct scientific and implementation activities.

The primary objective of the Łukasiewicz Network is to conduct applied research and development work relevant to the Polish economy and national development strategy. The group of institutes was formed mainly from entities subordinate to the Ministry of Entrepreneurship and Technology. The goal is to provide attractive, complete and competitive business solutions in the areas of automation, chemistry, biomedicine, ICT, materials, and advanced manufacturing.

In 2018, the second network in Poland started its activity which is formed by institutes operating in the field of land transport not affiliated with the Łukasiewicz Research Network. Their main task is the implementation of national as well as international R&D projects and commercialization of research results.²⁶ The mission of the network is to strengthen the potential of research institutes, enabling the
implementation of large research projects for the development of transport, economy and competitiveness of enterprises. A characteristic feature of the network is the operation of this group of institutes within the competencies of the minister responsible for transport and focusing its activities on land transport. This area has been identified as one of the six most important in the SOR including among the thirteen strategic projects of the state.

Decisions in the Network are most often made by agreement. They are made by the directors of the institutes, who meet periodically throughout the year. In addition, persons from the individual institutes are designated for working cooperation. They carry out specific activities independently of their superiors’ meetings. An important advantage of the Network is that its management is practically costless, as the implemented activities are performed within the existing duties of its participants. POLTRIN continues the previous activities of the associated institutes, especially in the field of projects, and has also cooperated/participated in the Transport Day, organized annually in September by the Ministry of Infrastructure.²⁷

Institutes, within the network, operate on the basis of Regulations and Organizational Statutes approved by the supervising minister. They retain a separate legal personality and act in their own name and on their own account. The Network’s mission is broadly understood cooperation with the Polish economy in the field of road and rail transport. All institutes are headquartered in Warsaw, they do not require any restructuring or legal changes. The institutes associated in the network run complementary activities and have been cooperating for many years, both in terms of scientific and research projects, and e.g. in the area of certification. They are linked by many short-term and long-term agreements. Creating a network of scientific units allowed systematizing all the activities and facilitates taking joint initiatives on an ongoing basis. Of particular importance will be undertakings related to large transport projects across the country, such as the construction of new roads and freeways and the modernization of railroad lines. Cooperation between the institutes, in particular, includes:

• performing tasks important for planning and implementation of state policy, necessary to ensure the development of innovative, efficient, safe and low-emission land transport,
• identifying common problems concerning the sector and taking actions aimed at solving them with the use of expertise, scientific potential and research equipment at the disposal of the institutes,
• shaping strategic research programs as well as initiating and implementing a joint research and implementation program in the area of land transport,
• implementation of joint scientific and development work as well as implementation and dissemination of their results,
• cooperation between the laboratories of the institutes and exchange of research experience,²⁸
• representation of the network on the international arena in the area of scientific research and development.²⁹

The scope of the network’s activities is primarily aimed at:

• performing tasks important for the planning and implementation of state policy in the development of innovative, efficient, safe and low-carbon land transport,
• identifying and solving common problems in the transport and infrastructure sector and infrastructure,
• shaping strategic research programs,
• initiating and implementing a joint research and implementation program in the area of land transport.

Conclusions and recommendations

Creating research networks is a modern international trend. In Europe, excellent examples are the CARNOT network in France and the Fraunhofer Society in Germany. The effect of the activity of such structures results in an increase in the level of innovativeness of a given country. In Poland, the process of activity of two scientific networks associating research institutes has begun.

After analyzing the experience of networking of institutes in other European countries, it can be concluded that the model of functioning of scientific institutes associated in networks allows for:

• optimal use of research infrastructure,
• unification of organization within the institutes, which will increase their economic efficiency,
• strengthening the potential of research institutes,
• capacity to implement large R&D projects,
• increased success rate in European programs (Horizon 2020),
• faster transfer of knowledge and new technologies from science to the economy.

After one year of functioning of the Łukasiewicz and POLTRIN networks in Poland, the following benefits of their activities may be noticed: easier and faster access to the staff of specialists, more effective use of research potential and experience of the affiliated institutes, possibility of participation in interdisciplinary projects, innovative and adequate approach to the market demand for R&D services. When setting directions for future activities, research institutes should place even greater emphasis on active cooperation with enterprises, universities and institutes of the Polish Academy of Sciences in order to jointly implement national and international research projects.

Research institutes can be treated as “hybrid” organizations. They are located at the interface between science and economy. They operate on the borderline of science with close relations to industry. They represent a kind of dichotomy between science and applied research while bridging the gap between universities and entrepreneurs. Institutes are forced to develop an appropriate model of functioning in order to fit into the expectations of the economy and science. They are research organizations that are much less subject to scientific analysis than their counterparts, such as universities. Research institutes should be perceived in two dimensions — they occupy the position of an intermediary between science and economy, operating under the pressure of global challenges.³⁰

It should be mentioned that the literature on the characteristics and evaluation of the functioning of research institutes in Poland is not very extensive. This article may be a starting point for further research related to the role and place of research institutes in the system of science in our country. The question remains open how to develop an optimal model of networking these institutions in Poland?

The presented activities of both networks indicate that the mission, objectives and tasks facing research institutes are the same. What needs to be solved is the model of their functioning (organizational form), supervision, management and financing within the structures of Polish science and economy.

Endnotes

¹ See: Wicher-Baluta, A., “Znaczenie kapitału społecznego opartego na analizie sieciowej w metodach zatrudniania pracowników.” (In Polish: “Importance of the social capital based on the network analysis in the methods of employing workers.”), in: Praca, społeczeństwo, gospodarka, J. Osiński (ed.), Oficyna Wydawnicza SGH, Warszawa 2011, pp. 222–223.

² See: Wicher-Baluta A., “Polityka oparta na klastrach jako czynnik stymulujący innowacyjność gospodarki Unii Europejskiej”, in: Kwartalnik Kolegium Ekonomiczno-Społecznego, Warszawa 2012, no. 4, pp. 253–268.

³ Knop, L., and Olko, S. “Ewolucja form organizacyjnych sieci współpracy” (In Polish: “Evolution of the organizational forms of cooperation networks.”), in: Organizacja i Zarządzanie, scientific quarterly, 2008/1, pp.101–116.

⁴ https://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/policy/innovation/scoreboards_en (accessed March 25, 2020)

⁵ The provisions of the Act shall not apply to research institutes of higher education and establishments of the Polish Academy of Sciences.

⁶ Act of 30 April 2010 on Research Institutes, (Journal of Laws of 2010, No. 96, item 618).

⁷ If it meets certain requirements laid down in the Act of 30 April 2010 on Research Institutes, (Journal of Laws of 2010. No.96 item 618).

⁸ Barcikowska R., Instytuty badawcze w polskiej polityce innowacyjnej w warunkach członkostwa w Unii Europejskiej Instytut Politologii Uniwersytetu Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego w Warszawie, (In Polish: Research institutes in the Polish innovation politics in the conditions of EU membership, PhD thesis, The Institute of Political Science, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw 2015).

⁹ According to the amendment, the minister supervising state research institutes will appoint the institute’s director from among candidates presented by a competition committee. The minister will also have the right not to appoint the director if, among others, none of the candidates guarantees the proper performance of the institute’s tasks. Furthermore, the amendment provides that the supervising minister will appoint (upon the director’s motion) and dismiss deputy directors of a state research institute. In the case of the scientific council of a state research institute, the amendment provides that it will consist of at least 50% of the institute’s employees as defined in the institute’s statutes and at least 50% of persons appointed by the supervising minister. At the same time, the amendment provides that the chairman of the scientific council of a state research institute will be elected only from among the members of the scientific council appointed by the supervising minister.

¹⁰ Act of 30 April 2010 on Research Institutes, (Journal of Laws of 2010, No. 96, item 618.).

¹¹ https://konstytucjadlanauki.gov.pl/ (accessed March 25, 2020).

¹² https://lukasiewicz.gov.pl/ (accessed March 25, 2020).

¹³ https://www.gov.pl/web/nauka/lukasiewicz (accessed July 27, 2020)

¹⁴ Polish Transport Research Institutes Network POLTRIN

¹⁵ https://www.fraunhofer.de/en.html (accessed April 2, 2020 r.)

¹⁶ Intarakumnerd P., Goto A. “Role of public research institutes in national innovation”, Research Policy 47(2018), pp. 1309–1320.

¹⁷ https://www.fraunhofer.de/en/media-center/publications/fraunhofer-annual-report.html (accessed August 3, 2020).

¹⁸ https://www.instituts-carnot.eu/en/mot-cl%C3%A9s/carnot-network (accessed April 15, 2020).

¹⁹ The Carnot label is awarded by the MNiB through a call for competitive proposals announced by the ANR there.
The selection procedure consists of an evaluation by a special Commission, after a positive evaluation, the institute in question receives the so-called CARNOT accreditation for five years.

²⁰ Barcikowska R, Sieciowanie instytutów badawczych narzędziem rozwoju polityki innowacyjności w wybranych krajach europejskich, Marketing Instytucji Naukowych i Badawczych, 2018. (In Polish: Networking of the research institutes as a development tool of the innovation politics in the selected European countries, Marketing of Scientific and Research Organizations, 2018).

²¹ Barcikowska R., Instytuty badawcze w polskiej polityce innowacyjnej w warunkach członkostwa w Unii Europejskiej Instytut Politologii Uniwersytetu Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego w Warszawie, (In Polish: Research Institutes in the Polish innovation politics in the conditions of EU memberships, PhD thesis, The Institute of Political Science, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw 2015)

²² See: Praca zbiorowa pod redakcją Bromski K., Współpraca nauki i biznesu, Doświadczenia i dobre praktyki wybranych projektów w ramach Programu Operacyjnego Innowacyjna Gospodarka na lata 2007–2013, Polska Agencja Przedsiębiorczości, Warsaw 2013 (In Polish: Collective work edited by K. Bromski, Cooperation of science and business: Experiences and good practices of the selected projects in the framework of the Operational Program “Innovative Economy for 2007–2013”, Polish Agency for Entrepreneurship Development).

²³ http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU20180000646/T/D20180646L.pdf (accessed May 11, 2020).

²⁴ https://lukasiewicz.gov.pl/o-nas/

²⁵ https://www.senat.gov.pl/gfx/senat/pl/senatekspertyzy/5061/plik/1100o.pdf (accessed April 3, 2020).

²⁶ In July 2018, the Road and Bridge Research Institute, the Railway Institute and the Motor Transport Institute concluded an agreement on the establishment of the Polish Transport Research Institutes Network (POLTRIN).

²⁷ Rafalski L, Duże projekty transportowe (In Polish: Big Transportation Projects.), Przegląd Techniczny no.5/2020, p. 12.

²⁸ POLTRIN activity report for 2019, submitted to the Ministry of Infrastructure.

²⁹ https://www.gov.pl/web/infrastruktura/powolanie-polskiej-sieci-instytutow-badawczych-transportu-poltrin (accessed March 20, 2020).

³⁰ Gullbrandsen, M., Research institutes as hybrid organizations: Central challenges to their legitimacy, Policy Sciences 44(2011), pp. 215–230

References

Subject literature
Barcikowska, R. (2015). Instytuty badawcze w polskiej polityce innowacyjnej w warunkach członkostwa w Unii Europejskiej. [Praca doktorska, Instytut Politologii Uniwersytetu Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego w Warszawie].
Barcikowska, R. (2018) Sieciowanie instytutów badawczych narzędziem rozwoju polityki innowacyjności w wybranych krajach europejskich. Marketing Instytucji Naukowych i Badawczych, 29(3), 1–14. DOI: 10.14611/MINIB.29.09.2018.01.
Beise, M., & Stahl, H. (1999). Public research and industrial innovations in Germany.
Research Policy, Elsevier, 28(4), 397–422.
Bromski, K.(2013). Współpraca nauki i biznesu, Doświadczenia i dobre praktyki wybranych projektów w ramach Programu Operacyjnego Innowacyjna Gospodarka na lata 2007–2013.
Warszawa: Polska Agencja Przedsiębiorczości.
Czerniak, J. (2013). Polityka innowacyjna w Polsce, analiza i proponowane kierunki zmian.
Warszawa: Difin.
Christensen, C. M., & Raynor, M. E. (2013). The innovator’s solution: Creating and sustaining succesfull growth. Harvard Business Review Press.
Daszkiewicz, M. (2008). Jednostki badawczo-rozwojowe jako źródło innowacyjności w gospodarce i pomoc dla małych i średnich przedsiębiorstw. [Guide on line].
https://poir.parp.gov.pl/storage/publications/pdf/4361.pdf.
Gryzik, A., & Knapińska, A., red. (2012). Zarządzanie projektami badawczo-rozwojowymi w sektorze nauki. Warszawa: Ośrodek Przetwarzania Informacji — Instytut Badawczy.
https://docplayer.pl/7808613-Zarzadzanie-projektami-badawczo-rozwojowymi-w-sektorzenaukired-agnieszka-gryzik-anna-knapinska.html.
Gryzik, A. (2017). Instytuty badawcze w nowoczesnej gospodarce. Warszawa: Ośrodek Przetwarzania Informacji — Instytut Badawczy. https://docplayer.pl/147729517-Instytutybadawczew-nowoczesnej-gospodarce.html.
Gullbrandsen, M. (2011). Research institutes as hybrid organizations: Central challenges to their legitimacy. Policy Sciences, 44, 215–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-011-9128-4.
Intarakumnerd, P., & Goto, A. (2018). Role of public research institutes in national innovation systems in industrialized countries: The cases of Fraunhofer, NIST, CSIRO, AIST, and ITRI. Research Policy, 47(7), 1309–1320. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.respol.2018.04.011.
Jarocka, D. (2018). Narodziny małych sieci. Biuletyn Informacyjny Rady Głównej Instytutów Badawczych, 1(102), 1.
Kancelaria Senatu (2019, 25 luty). Opinia do ustawy o Sieci Badawczej Łukasiewicz.
https://www.senat.gov.pl/gfx/senat/pl/senatekspertyzy/5061/plik/1100o.pdf. (3.04.2020 r.) Knop, L., & Olko, S. (2008). Ewolucja form organizacyjnych sieci współpracy. Organizacja i Zarządzanie: Kwartalnik Naukowy, 1, 101–116. http://delibra.bg.polsl.pl/Content/27258/BCPS_ 30952_-_Ewolucja-form-organi_0000.pdf.
Łobejko, S. (2008). Stan i tendencje rozwojowe sektora jednostek badawczo-rozwojowych w Polsce. Warszawa: Polska Agencja Rozwoju Przedsiębiorczości. https://www.parp.gov.pl/component/ publications/publication/stan-i-tendencje-rozwojowe-sektora-jednostek-badawczorozwojowychw-polsce.
Ministerstwo Infrastruktury (2018, 17 lipca). Powołanie polskiej sieci instytutów badawczych transportu POLTRIN. https://www.gov.pl/web/infrastruktura/powolaniepolskiejsieci-instytutow-badawczych-transportu-poltrin. (20.03.2020 r.) Olechnicka, A., Płoszaj, A. (2010). Sieci współpracy receptą na innowacyjność regionu.
W: A. Tucholska (red.), Europejskie wyzwania dla Polski i jej regionów (200–214).
Warszawa: Ministerstwo Rozwoju Regionalnego. http://www.euroreg.uw.edu.pl/ pl/publikacje,sieci-wspolpracy-recepta-na-innowacyjnosc-regionu.
Rafalski, L. (2020). Duże projekty transportowe. Przegląd Techniczny 5(2020), 12. Patrz również: Przegląd Techniczny, 1(104), kwiecień 2019.
Wicher-Baluta, A. (2011). Znaczenie kapitału społecznego opartego na analizie sieciowej w metodach zatrudniania pracowników. W: J. Osińska (red.), Praca, społeczeństwo, gospodarka (222–223). Warszawa: Oficyna Wydawnicza SGH.
Wicher-Baluta, A. (2012). Polityka oparta na klastrach jako czynnik stymulujący innowacyjność gospodarki Unii Europejskiej. Kwartalnik Kolegium EkonomicznoSpołecznego, 4, 253–268.

Government documents
Ustawa z dnia 6 marca 2018 r. Prawo przedsiębiorców (Dz.U. 2018 poz. 646).
Ustawa z dnia 30 kwietnia 2010 r. O instytutach badawczych (Dz.U. z 2010 r. Nr 96 poz. 618).
Ustawa z dnia 20 lipca 2018 r. Prawo o szkolnictwie wyższym i nauce (Dz.U. 2018 poz.
1668).
Ustawa z dnia 21lutego 2019r.O Sieci Badawczej Łukasiewicz (Dz.U. 2019 poz. 534).

Internet sources
https://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/policy/innovation/scoreboards_en (25.03.2020 r.).
https://konstytucjadlanauki.gov.pl/ (25.03.2020 r.).
Sieć badawcza Łukasiewicz
https://lukasiewicz.gov.pl/ (25.03.2020 r.).
Sieć badawcza POLTRIN
https://www.gov.pl/web/infrastruktura/powolanie-polskiej-sieci-instytutow-badawczychtransportupoltrin (20.03.2020 r.).
Niemiecki System Badań i Innowacji
http://www.polen.diplo.de/Vertretung/polen/pl/12-wissenschaft-forschung/03-wissenschaftinnovation/ 0-wissenschaft-innovation.html, (19.04.2020 r).
Stowarzyszenie Fraunhofer
https://www.fraunhofer.de/en.html (2.04.2020 r.).
Sieć badawcza Carnot
https://www.instituts-carnot.eu/en/mot-cl%C3%A9s/carnot-network (2.04.2020 r.).
Internal materials of the POLTRIN network.
Sprawozdanie z działalności sieci za rok 2019 r. przekazane do Ministerstwa Infrastruktury w styczniu 2020 r.