The author have chosen telecommunications industry which has been characterized by one of the most stable growth trends also during the economic crisis, intense competition in the industry, especially in mobile communications niche, diverse range of products offered, and changes from being discretionary to essential service for customer needs. In Latvia, 2010 there were 419 registered electronic communications’ merchants out of which 297 were operating [20].
A telecommunications company must invest resources in company’s development in order for it to be competitive and attracting clients.
When comparing capital investments in telecommunications operators, it can be concluded that investments have decreased in all telecommunication companies’ during the economic crisis in Latvia.
Telecommunications industry is not only technologically rapidly developing sector, but also an industry that actively attracts and employs workforce. According to research findings from Lithuania telecommunication industry, the usage of non-financial company’s performance measures for top level management decision making is prevalent against the usage of financial measures [12]. Moreover, employees working in this industry differ from other by demographic and social indicators. Also job content is different — employees are required to have higher competence, creativity and good communication skills. To evaluate the situation of employees motivation and importance of the freedom and autonomy at work in telecommunication industry in comparison with other industries in Latvia, authors have initiated survey of employees (1098 surveys of general public and 473 surveys of telecommunications industry employees). The respondents were asked to use 7-point scale ranging from 1 — strongly disagree and 7 — strongly agree. Distribution of main statistical indicators on evaluations of statements in telecommunication companies and other companies in Latvia in 2010 is presented in table 1.
Data of table 1 indicates that evaluations on statement “Freedom, autonomy in work” are higher (arithmetic mean) in telecommunication companies, as well as variability of responses is lower in telecommunication companies. Distribution of evaluations on statement that employees have “Freedom, autonomy in work” in telecommunication companies and other companies in Latvia in 2010 is presented in table 2.
Data of table 2 indicates that evaluations on statement “Freedom, autonomy in work” are higher in telecommunication industry (more that 76,1% of respondents give the evaluation 5 or higher), for other industries 6,9% of respondents gave the lowest evaluations and evaluation of 5 or more gave 68,9% of the respondents. Distribution of evaluations on statement that employees have “Respectable work (possibility to perform important work)” in telecommunication companies and other companies in Latvia in 2010 is presented in table 3.
Data of table 3 indicates that evaluations on statement that employees have “Respectable work (possibility to perform important
work)” are higher in the telecommunication companies (evaluation of 6 or higher is given by 65,3% of the respondents), in other fields evaluations differ more and highest evaluations are much less (evaluation of 6 or higher is given by 44,2% of the respondents).
CONCLUSIONS
Among the motivation factors for employees on great importance is freedom, autonomy in work as well as respectable work (possibility to perform important work). Employees of telecommunication companies have evaluated the freedom, autonomy in work as well as respectable work (possibility to perform important work) higher as representatives from other fields.
REFERENCES
Adomaitiene R., SlatkeviNiene G. Employee Satisfaction and Service quality in Contact Centres, Economics and Management, 2008, 13, pp.770-775.
Bandura, A., Schunk, Dale H. Cultivating Competence, Self-Efficacy, and Intrinsic Interest Through Proximal Self- Motivation, Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, Sep1981, Vol. 41, Issue 3, p.586-598.
Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M. The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behaviour. Psychological Inquiry, 2000, Vol. 11, pp. 227-268.
Table 1. Distribution of main statistical indicators on evaluations of statements in telecommunication companies
and other companies in Latvia in 2010
Source: Author’s calculations, data of survey August — December, 2010:
telecommunication employees (n=473) and other employees (n=1098) Evaluation scale 1–7, where 1 — strongly disagree; 7 — strongly agree
Table 2. Distribution of evaluations on statement that employees have “Freedom, autonomy in work” in telecommunication companies
and other companies in Latvia in 2010
Source: Author’s calculations, data of survey August — December, 2010:
telecommunication employees (n=473) and other employees (n=1098) Evaluation scale 1-7, where 1 — strongly disagree; 7 — strongly agree
Table 3. Distribution of evaluations on statement that employees have
“Respectable work (possibility to perform important work)”
in telecommunication companies and other companies in Latvia in 2010
Source: Author’s calculations, data of survey August — December, 2010:
telecommunication employees (n=473) and other employees (n=1098) Evaluation scale 1–7, where 1 — strongly disagree; 7 — strongly agree
Dysvik A., Kuvaas B. The relationshi p between perceived training opportunities, work motivation and employees outcomes, International Journal of Training and Development, 2008, p 138-157.
Fernandez, Z., Usero B. (2009). Competitive behaviour in the European mobile telecommunications industry: Pioneers vs. followers, Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 33, pp. 339-347.
Fleck, D.L. Why We Should Dare to Manage Growth Responsibly, Management Decision, Vol. 48, No10, 2011, pp. 1529-1538.
Gaines-Ross, L. Corporate Reputation. Wiley & Sons. 2008. 657.p.
Hackman, J. R., Oldham, G.R. Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 159-170
Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J., D., Morgeson, F.P. Integrating Motivational, Social, and Contextual Work Design Features: A Meta-Analytic Summary and Theoretical Extension of the Work Design Literature, Journal of Applied Psychology, Sep.2007, Vol. 92 Issue 5, pp.1332-1356.
Jeremy Pincus. The consequences of unmet needs: The evolving role of motivation in consumer research, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 2011, Vol. 3, 4, pp. 375-387.
John P. Meyer, Thomas E. Becker. Christian Vandenberghe, Employee Commitment and Motivation: A Conceptual Analysis and Integrative Model, Journal of Applied Psychology, 2004, Vol. 89, No. 6, pp. 991-1007.
Jurk»tiene A., Dar»kuviene V., Déda A. Management Control Systems and stakeholders’Interests in Lithuania multinational Companies: cases from the Telecommunications industry, Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2008, 9(2), pp 97-106.
Kazlauskaitë, R., & BuNiénienX, I. HR function developments in Lithuania, Baltic Journal of Management, 2010, Vol. 5 (2), pp. 218-241.
McFillen, J.M., Maloney, William F. Academic Journal New answers and new questions in construction worker motivation. Construction Management & Economics, Mar1988, Vol. 6 Issue 1, pp. 12 -35.
Meyer J.P., Herscovitch L. Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general model, Human Resources Management Review, 2001, Vol 11, pp.299-326.
Moorhead G., Griffin R.W. Organizational behaviour: managing people and organizations (5th edition), Houghton Miffin, Boston,1998.
Latham, G.P., Pinder, C.C. Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Psychology, 2005, Vol. 56, pp. 485-516.
Locke, E.A., Latham, G.P. What should we do about motivation theory? Six recommendations for the twenty-first century, Academy of Management Review, 2004. Vol. 28, pp. 388-403.
Osterloh, M., Frost, J., Frey, B. The Dynamics of Motivation in New Organizational Forms, International Journal of the Economics of Business, Feb2002, Vol. 9 Issue 1, pp. 61-77.
Review of Public service regulation committee on telecommunication industry in Latvia, 2011. May, http://www.sprk.gov.lv/index.php?id=11057&sadala=616 Rafikul I., Ahmad Zaki Hj, I. Employee Motivation: a Malaysian perspective, Journal of
Consumer Behaviour 2011, Vol. 3, 4, pp. 346-359.
Ross, S. George Loewenstein: Exotic Preferences: Behavioural Economics and Human Motivation. Mission Possible? The Performance of Prosocially Motivated Employees Depends on Manager Trustworthiness, Czech Sociological Review, 2008, Vol. 44 Issue 6, pp.1200-1205.
Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L. Overview of self-determination theory. In E.L. Deci, & R.M. Ryan, Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press, 2002, pp. 3–33.
Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of instrinsic motivation, social development and well-being, American Psychologist, 2000, Vol 55, pp. 68-78.
Savaneviciene A., Stankevicuite Z. Human Resource Management Practices Linkage with Organizational commitment and Job Satisfaction, Economics and Management, 2011, Vol16, pp. 921-929.
Sumanth, D. Total productivity management. A Systemic and Quantitative Approach to Compete in Quality, Price and Time. USA, 1998, CRC Press LLC
Van Yperen, N.W., Hagedoorn, M. Do High job Demands Increase Intrinsic Motivation of Fatique or Both? The Role of Job Control and Job Social Support, Academy of Management Journal, Jun. 2003, Vol. 46 Issue 3, p. 339-348 Vroom, Victor H., Jones, Stephen C. Division of Labor and Performance under
Cooperative and Competitive conditions, Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, Mar1964, Vol. 68 Issue 3, p. 313-320, 8p, 4 Charts
Wang Ke-Yi, Liu Lin-Lin An Empirical Study of Service Innovation’s Effect on Customers’ Re-purchase Intention in Telecommunication Industry, Canadian Social Science, Vol. 6, No. 5, 2010, pp. 190-199.
úuperkiene E., úilinskas V. Analysis of Factors Motivating the Managers’ Career, 2008, Engineering Economics, No 2, pp.85-92.
Ìàðèíà Ñåðãååâíà Ìóõà÷åâà, Ìàðèéñêèé ãîñóäàðñòâåííûé óíèâåðñèòåò, Ðîññèÿ
Инновации в системе экономики, основанной на знаниях:
мирохозяйственный контекст
АННОТАЦИЯ
 ðàáîòå èññëåäóåòñÿ ïðîáëåìà âûÿâëåíèÿ ñòåïåíè çíà÷èìî-ñòè èííîâàöèé â ñèñòåìå ýêîíîìèêè, îñíîâàííîé íà çíàíèÿõ â ìèðîõîçÿéñòâåííîì êîíòåêñòå. Äàíà àâòîðñêàÿ èíòåðïðåòàöèÿ ïîíÿòèÿ «èííîâàöèÿ», çàêëþ÷àþùàÿñÿ â òîì, ÷òî èííîâàöèè ñåãîäíÿ — îñíîâíîé èñòî÷íèê ýêîíîìè÷åñêîãî ðîñòà è âàæ-íåéøèé ôàêòîð êîíêóðåíòîñïîñîáíîñòè ïðåäïðèÿòèé, ðåãèîíîâ è íàöèîíàëüíûõ ýêîíîìèê, îíè ÿâëÿþòñÿ îñíîâíîé ôîðìîé ïðåâðàùåíèÿ çíàíèé â áëàãîñîñòîÿíèå îáùåñòâà è ïðåäñòàâëÿ-þò ñîáîé êëþ÷åâóþ õàðàêòåðèñòèêó ýêîíîìèêè, îñíîâàííîé íà çíàíèÿõ. Ñäåëàí âûâîä î òîì, ÷òî ñòðàíû, íàõîäÿùèåñÿ â äåñÿòêå ñàìûõ èííîâàöèîííûõ, óäåëÿþò áîëüøîå âíèìàíèå ðàçâèòèþ çíàíèé, îñóùåñòâëÿÿ çíà÷èòåëüíûå èíâåñòèöèè â íàóêó, òåì ñàìûì îáåñïå÷èâàÿ ñåáå äîñòîéíîå ìåñòî â ðàçâèòèè ýêîíîìè-êè, îñíîâàííîé íà çíàíèÿõ, â óñëîâèÿõ âûñîêîé îðãàíèçàöèè êîòîðîé ôîðìèðóåòñÿ èííîâàöèîííàÿ ýêîíîìèêà.
Êëþ÷åâûå ñëîâà: çíàíèÿ; èííîâàöèè; ýêîíîìèêà; ýêîíîìè-êà, îñíîâàííàÿ íà çíàíèÿõ.
SUMMARY
The work is devoted to the problem of defining the level of innovations importance in the system based economy the knowledge in the world economic context. The Author’s view on the concept
“innovation” is given. It says that the innovation today is the main source of economic growth and the major factor of the competitiveness of enterprises, regions and national economies. They are the basic way of transforming the knowledge into the social well-being and they give the key economic characteristics based on the knowledge. The conclusion is about the fact that the countries which are top ten innovative states pay much attention to the knowledge development making high investments into science and providing therefore a solid place in the economic development based on the knowledge in the conditions of high innovative economic organization.
 ïîñòêðèçèñíûé ïåðèîä ýêîíîìèêè èííîâàöèè ñòàëè ïðè-îðèòåòíûì íàïðàâëåíèåì ðàçâèòèÿ âåäóùèõ õîçÿéñòâåííûõ ñèñòåì, ïîýòîìó ôîðìèðîâàíèå èííîâàöèîííîé ýêîíîìèêè ÿâëÿåòñÿ âåêòîðîì ðàçâèòèÿ âåäóùèõ ñòðàí ìèðà.  ñâÿçè ñ ýòèì, íåîáõîäèìî âûÿâèòü ñòåïåíü çíà÷èìîñòè èííîâàöèé â ñèñòåìå ýêîíîìèêè, îñíîâàííîé íà çíàíèÿõ â ìèðîõîçÿé-ñòâåííîì êîíòåêñòå.
Äëÿ ðåøåíèÿ îáîçíà÷åííîé ïðîáëåìû íåîáõîäèìî óòî÷íèòü ïîíÿòèå «èííîâàöèÿ», èññëåäîâàòü ðîëü èííîâàöèé â ýêîíîìè-êå, îñíîâàííîé íà çíàíèÿõ â àñïåêòå ìèðîâîãî õîçÿéñòâà, à òàêæå ïîñðåäñòâîì èçó÷åíèÿ çíà÷åíèé èíäåêñà ýêîíîìèêè çíà-íèé è èíäåêñà çíàçíà-íèé îïðåäåëèòü ñòåïåíü âîâëå÷åíèÿ ðàçâèòûõ ñòðàí â èííîâàöèîííûé ïðîöåññ.
Íåîáõîäèìî ïîíèìàòü, ÷òî ñàìî ïîíÿòèå «èííîâàöèÿ» ïî-ñòîÿííî òðàíñôîðìèðóåòñÿ, èçìåíÿÿ ñìûñë è ýêîíîìè÷åñêóþ ñóùíîñòü. Ìîæíî âûäåëèòü âîñåìü îñíîâíûõ îïðåäåëåíèé, ïðè-íÿòûõ íà ðàçíûõ ýòàïàõ ðàçâèòèÿ ýêîíîìèêè:
èííîâàöèÿ — èíñòðóìåíò óïðàâëåíèÿ áèçíåñîì, ïðèâîäÿ-ùèé ê êîììåð÷åñêîìó óñïåõó;
èííîâàöèÿ, ðàññìàòðèâàåìàÿ êàê íîâøåñòâî, èíæåíåðíàÿ ìûñëü, òåõíè÷åñêàÿ èäåÿ, êîòîðóþ íåîáõîäèìî âíåäðÿòü â ïðî-èçâîäñòâî äëÿ óâåëè÷åíèÿ ýôôåêòèâíîñòè ïðîèçâîäñòâåííîãî ïðîöåññà;
â îïðåäåëåíèè èííîâàöèè ââîäèòñÿ íå òîëüêî êîëè÷å-ñòâåííàÿ, íî è êà÷åñòâåííàÿ ñòîðîíà íàó÷íî-òåõíè÷åñêîãî ïðîãðåññà;
èííîâàöèÿ îïèñûâàåòñÿ êàê ïðîöåññ ðàçâèòèÿ ñ îñîáûìè õàðàêòåðèñòèêàìè è çàêîíîìåðíîñòÿìè;
âîñïðèÿòèå èííîâàöèè êàê ìåòîäà — ñðåäñòâî óñêîðåííî-ãî ðàçâèòèÿ ñëîæíûõ ñèñòåì, íå òîëüêî â ìàñøòàáå ïðåäïðèÿ-òèé, íî è îòðàñëåé è ðåãèîíîâ;
èííîâàöèè ñòàíîâÿòñÿ èíäèêàòîðîì ðàçâèòèÿ îáùåñòâà â ðàçëè÷íûõ ñôåðàõ äåÿòåëüíîñòè â ìàñøòàáàõ ñòðàíû;
óâåëè÷èâàåòñÿ ñôåðà âîñïðèÿòèÿ è íàçíà÷åíèÿ èííîâà-öèé â ðàçâèòèè îáùåñòâà, â òîì ÷èñëå è
ñîöèàëüíî-ýêîíîìè-÷åñêîé ñôåðå. Ïðîèñõîäèò îñîçíàíèå îáùåñòâåííûõ ïîñëåä-ñòâèé òîãî, ÷òî ïðîèñõîäèò ñ ýêîíîìèêîé;
â íàñòîÿùåå âðåìÿ èííîâàöèè âîñïðèíèìàþòñÿ êàê ìîù-íûé ôàêòîð è ýôôåêòèâìîù-íûé ðû÷àã ðàçâèòèÿ è ñàìîðàçâèòèÿ îáùåñòâà è åãî îòäåëüíûõ ñôåð äåÿòåëüíîñòè â óñëîâèÿõ ìèðî-âîãî ñèñòåìíîãî êðèçèñà [3].
Íåîáõîäèìî îòìåòèòü, ÷òî ÷åòêîå ðàçãðàíè÷åíèå ïîíÿòèÿ «èí-íîâàöèè» ïî ñòàäèÿì ðàçâèòèÿ ýêîíîìèêè îòñóòñòâóåò, òàê êàê îíè â ëþáîì ïðîÿâëåíèè ìîãóò ïðèñóòñòâîâàòü íà êàæäîé ñòàäèè.
Ñôîðìèðóåì àâòîðñêóþ èíòåðïðåòàöèþ ïîíÿòèÿ «èííîâà-öèÿ» â ñèñòåìå ñîâðåìåííîé ýêîíîìèêè, îñíîâàííîé íà çíàíèÿõ.
Ðèñóíîê 1. Àâòîðñêàÿ èíòåðïðåòàöèÿ ïîíÿòèÿ «èííîâàöèÿ»
â ðàìêàõ ñèñòåìû ñîâðåìåííîé ýêîíîìèêè
Èííîâàöèè ñåãîäíÿ — îñíîâíîé èñòî÷íèê ýêîíîìè÷åñêîãî ðîñòà è âàæíåéøèé ôàêòîð êîíêóðåíòîñïîñîáíîñòè ïðåäïðèÿ-òèé, ðåãèîíîâ è íàöèîíàëüíûõ ýêîíîìèê, îíè ÿâëÿþòñÿ îñíîâ-íîé ôîðìîé ïðåâðàùåíèÿ çíàíèé â áëàãîñîñòîÿíèå îáùåñòâà è ïðåäñòàâëÿþò ñîáîé êëþ÷åâóþ õàðàêòåðèñòèêó ýêîíîìèêè, îñ-íîâàííîé íà çíàíèÿõ.
 íàñòîÿùåå âðåìÿ ïåðâîñòåïåííîå çíà÷åíèå â ñîçäàíèè èñòî÷íèêà ñòîèìîñòè èìåþò çíàíèÿ, à íå òðóäîâàÿ äåÿòåëüíîñòü, òàê êàê â ñîâðåìåííîì ïðîèçâîäñòâåííîì ïðîöåññå èñïîëüçó-åòñÿ äîñòàòî÷íî øèðîêèé ñïåêòð èííîâàöèîííûõ òåõíîëîãèé,
÷òî òðåáóåò ïîñòîÿííîãî ïîâûøåíèÿ êâàëèôèêàöèè ðàáîòíè-êîâ è ïîëó÷åíèÿ çíàíèé èçâíå.
Ïîñòåïåííî â ñîâðåìåííîå îáùåñòâî ïðèõîäèò îñîçíàíèå âàæíîñòè èíôîðìàöèè è çíàíèé â ýêîíîìè÷åñêîì ðàçâèòèè, âî âñåõ êðóãàõ îò ïîëèòèêîâ è ðóêîâîäèòåëåé, äî áèçíåñìåíîâ è ïðîèçâîäèòåëåé èííîâàöèè âîñïðèíèìàþòñÿ êàê îñíîâíîé ýëå-ìåíò îáåñïå÷åíèÿ êîíêóðåíòîñïîñîáíîñòè â ðàçëè÷íûõ ñôåðàõ äåÿòåëüíîñòè êàê â ìàñøòàáàõ ñòðàíû òàê è â ìèðîõîçÿéñòâåí-íîì àñïåêòå. Ñëåäîâàòåëüíî, âî âñåì ìèðå íà ïåðâîå ìåñòî äîëæíû âûäâèãàòüñÿ âëîæåíèÿ â ñîçäàíèå è ðàçâèòèå çíàíèé.
Ïðè îöåíêå çíà÷èìîñòè çíàíèé äëÿ êàæäîé èç ñòðàí ïðèìå-íèìà ìåòîäîëîãèÿ ñ èñïîëüçîâàíèåì äâóõ ñâîäíûõ èíäåêñîâ — èíäåêñà ýêîíîìèêè çíàíèé è èíäåêñà çíàíèé.
Èíäåêñ ýêîíîìèêè çíàíèé (The Knowledge Economy Index — KEI) — êîìïëåêñíûé ïîêàçàòåëü äëÿ îöåíêè ýôôåêòèâíîñòè èñïîëüçîâàíèÿ ñòðàíîé çíàíèé â öåëÿõ åå ýêîíîìè÷åñêîãî è îáùåñòâåííîãî ðàçâèòèÿ. Õàðàêòåðèçóåò óðîâåíü ðàçâèòèÿ òîé èëè èíîé ñòðàíû èëè ðåãèîíà ïî îòíîøåíèþ ê ýêîíîìèêå çíàíèé.
Èíäåêñ çíàíèé (The Knowledge Index — KI) — êîìïëåêñíûé ýêîíîìè÷åñêèé ïîêàçàòåëü äëÿ îöåíêè ñïîñîáíîñòè ñòðàíû ñîçäàâàòü, ïðèíèìàòü è ðàñïðîñòðàíÿòü çíàíèÿ. Õàðàêòåðèçóåò ïîòåíöèàë òîé èëè èíîé ñòðàíû èëè ðåãèîíà ïî îòíîøåíèþ ê ýêîíîìèêå çíàíèé.
Íà îñíîâàíèè èññëåäîâàíèÿ, ïðîâåäåííîãî â 2009 ãîäó Âñå-ìèðíûì áàíêîì è îõâàòèâøèì 146 ãîñóäàðñòâ è òåððèòîðèé, à òàêæå îñíîâíûå ðåãèîíû ìèðà, ðàññìîòðèì äåñÿòü ñòðàí, çàíè-ìàþùèõ ëèäèðóþùèå ïîçèöèè ïî çíà÷åíèÿì èíäåêñà çíàíèé è èíäåêñà ýêîíîìèêè çíàíèé, à òàêæå äàííûå ïîêàçàòåëè äëÿ Ðîññèè è Óêðàèíû.
Òàáëèöà 1. Èíäåêñ ýêîíîìèêè çíàíèé è åãî ïîêàçàòåëè â ñòðàíàõ ìèðà â 2009 ã. [2]
Ñîãëàñíî äàííûì, ïðèâåäåííûì â òàáëèöå 1, ñàìîé èííîâà-öèîííîé ñòðàíîé â 2009 ãîäó ÿâëÿëàñü Äàíèÿ, íà 6 ìåñòå íàõîäèëàñü Êàíàäà, ÑØÀ íà 9 ìåñòå, Ðîññèÿ â äàííîì ñïèñêå ëèøü íà øåñòèäåñÿòîì ìåñòå.
Ñëåäóåò îòìåòèòü, ÷òî â 2010 ãîäó íà îñíîâàíèè äàííûõ èññëåäîâàòåëüñêîãî öåíòðà Legatum Institute ñàìîé èííîâàöèîí-íîé ñòðàèííîâàöèîí-íîé ìèðà îñòàëàñü òàêæå Äàíèÿ. Çà íåé ñëåäóåò Øâåöèÿ, à Ñîåäèíåííûå Øòàòû çàíèìàþò óæå òðåòüå ìåñòî (+ 6 ïîçè-öèé). Ðîññèÿ â îáùåì ðåéòèíãå çàíèìàåò 63 ìåñòî (− 3 ïîçèöèè), à Óêðàèíà â îáùåì ðåéòèíãå çàíèìàåò 69 ìåñòî (− 9 ïîçèöèé).
Ñîãëàñíî îôèöèàëüíîé ôîðìóëèðîâêå èííîâàöèîííûìè ïðèçíàþòñÿ ñòðàíû, êîòîðûå âíîñÿò çíà÷èòåëüíûé âêëàä â ðàç-âèòèå áëàãîïîëó÷èÿ, ïðîöâåòàíèÿ ÷åëîâå÷åñòâà. Îäíàêî ñòðàíû, âõîäÿùèå â äåñÿòêó ñàìûõ áëàãîïîëó÷íûõ ïî óðîâíþ áëàãîñî-ñòîÿíèÿ íàñåëåíèÿ â ñëåäóþùåé ïîñëåäîâàòåëüíîñòè: Íîðâåãèÿ, Äàíèÿ, Ôèíëÿíäèÿ, Àâñòðàëèÿ, Íîâàÿ Çåëàíäèÿ, Øâåöèÿ, Êàíàäà, Øâåéöàðèÿ, Íèäåðëàíäû, Ñîåäèíåííûå Øòàòû Àìåðèêè, âûñòó-ïàþò â íåñêîëüêî èíîì ïîðÿäêå â ðåéòèíãå ñàìûõ èííîâàöèîí-íûõ ñòðàí (ïî ìíåíèþ Legatum Institute):
1. Äàíèÿ. Âûñîêèé óðîâåíü èííîâàöèé (âòîðîå ìåñòî ïî áëàãîñîñòîÿíèþ ãðàæäàí ñì.Prosperity Index), âõîäèò â ñåìü ëó÷øèõ ñòðàí ïî ðàçâèòèþ íàóêè. Ñàìûé íèçêèé ñòàðòîâûé êàïèòàë äëÿ ïîñòðîåíèÿ ñâîåãî áèçíåñà.
2. Øâåöèÿ. 3.1 % ÂÂÏ ñòðàíû óõîäèò íà ðàçâèòèå íàóêè, çàíèìàåò øåñòîå ìåñòî â ìèðå ïî äîõîäàì îò àâòîðñêèõ (ëèöåí-çèîííûõ) ïëàòåæåé (royalty recei pts). Ýêñïîðò òîâàðîâ èíôîð-ìàöèîííî-êîììóíèêàöèîííûõ òåõíîëîãèé ñîñòàâëÿåò 9.5% â îáùåì ýêñïîðòå ñòðàíû.
3. Ñîåäèíåííûå Øòàòû Àìåðèêè. Íà íàóêó çäåñü òðàòèòñÿ îêîëî 2.2% îò ÂÂÏ, äîõîäû æå îò èíòåëëåêòóàëüíîé ñîáñòâåí-íîñòè ïî÷òè 81 ìèëëèàðäîâ.
4. Ôèíëÿíäèÿ. Âõîäèò â äåñÿòêó ñòðàí ïî èíâåñòèöèÿì â íàóêó èç ÂÂÏ, 11 ìåñòî ïî ýêñïîðòó IT-ïðîäóêöèè (16.5%
ýêñïîðòà).
5. Âåëèêîáðèòàíèÿ. 3 ìåñòî ïî äîõîäàì îò èíòåëëåêòóàëüíîé ñîáñòâåííîñòè. 20-êà ëó÷øèõ ñòðàí ïî ðàçâèòèþ íàóêè è ýêñ-ïîðòó IT-ïðîäóêöèè.
6. Íîðâåãèÿ. Áëàãîñîñòîÿíèå æèòåëåé ñàìîå âûñîêîå â ìèðå (ïî ïîêàçàòåëÿì Legatum’s Prosperity Index). 93% íîðâåæöåâ ñ÷èòàþò, ÷òî óïîðíûé òðóä îïðàâäàåò ñåáÿ â áóäóùåì.
7. Èðëàíäèÿ. Âõîäèò â 20-êó ñòðàí ñ áëàãîïðèÿòíûì êëèìàòîì äëÿ ðàçâèòèÿ áèçíåñà, íàóêè è ïî äîõîäàì îò èíòåëëåêòóàëüíîé ñîáñòâåííîñòè. Ñòàðòîâûé êàïèòàë — òðåòüå ìåñòî â ìèðå.
8. Ñèíãàïóð. Áëàãîïðèÿòíûé êëèìàò äëÿ áèçíåñà è èííîâà-öèé. Â ðåçóëüòàòå — 15-å ìåñòî ïî ñáîðàì èíòåëëåêòóàëüíîé ñîáñòâåííîñòè.
9. Èñëàíäèÿ. 2.8% ÂÂÏ — íà íàóêó, à òàêæå áëàãîïðèÿòíûé îáùåñòâåííûé êëèìàò äëÿ áèçíåñà.
10. Êàíàäà. Ñòàðòîâûé êàïèòàë — ÷åòâåðòîå ìåñòî â ìèðå.
Èññëåäîâàòåëüñêèé öåíòð Legatum Institute óòâåðæäàåò, ÷òî ïîëó÷åííûå äàííûå îñíîâàíû íà àíàëèçå 110 ñòðàí ïî 89 ðàçëè÷íûì ïîêàçàòåëÿì â 8 ðàçëè÷íûõ îáëàñòÿõ: ýêîíîìèêå, áèçíåñ-ïàðòíåðñòâó, óïðàâëåíèþ ãîñóäàðñòâîì, îáðàçîâàíèþ, çäðà-âîîõðàíåíèþ, áåçîïàñíîñòè, ëè÷íîé ñâîáîäå è ñîöèàëüíîì êà-ïèòàëå [1].
Íåîáõîäèìî îòìåòèòü, ÷òî ñòðàíû, íàõîäÿùèåñÿ â äåñÿòêå ñàìûõ èííîâàöèîííûõ, óäåëÿþò áîëüøîå âíèìàíèå ðàçâèòèþ çíàíèé, îñóùåñòâëÿÿ çíà÷èòåëüíûå èíâåñòèöèè â íàóêó, òåì ñàìûì îáåñïå÷èâàÿ ñåáå äîñòîéíîå ìåñòî â ðàçâèòèè ýêîíîìè-êè, îñíîâàííîé íà çíàíèÿõ, â óñëîâèÿõ âûñîêîé îðãàíèçàöèè êîòîðîé ôîðìèðóåòñÿ èííîâàöèîííàÿ ýêîíîìèêà.
ИСТОЧНИКИ
1. 10 ñàìûõ èííîâàöèîííûõ ñòðàí 2010 ãîäà [Ýëåêòðîííûé ðåñóðñ] / Íàíîìåòð íàíîòåõíîëîãè÷åñêîå ñîîáùåñòâî. — Ðåæèì äîñòóïà http://
www.nanometer.ru/2011/01/16/1295189726142_242154.html. ñâîáîäíûé. — Çàãë. ñ ýêðàíà.
2. Èíäåêñ ýêîíîìèêè çíàíèé — èíôîðìàöèÿ îá èññëåäîâàíèè [Ýëåêòðîííûé ðåñóðñ] Öåíòð ãóìàíèòàðíûõ òåõíîëîãèé, ãóìàíèòàðíîå ðàçâèòèå â Ðîñ-ñèè è çà ðóáåæîì, ýêñïåðòíî-àíàëèòè÷åñêèé ïîðòàë — Ðåæèì äîñòóïà http://gtmarket.ru/ratings/knowledge-economy-index/knowledge-economy-index-info.ñâîáîäíûé. — Çàãë. ñ ýêðàíà.
3. Êàðëèíñêàÿ, Å.Â., Êàòàíñêèé, Â.Á. Ýâîëþöèÿ óïðàâëåíèÿ èííîâàöèÿìè: èäåè, ìåòîäû, èíñòðóìåíòû. Îáùèé îáçîð. [Ýëåêòðîííûé ðåñóðñ] — Ðåæèì äîñòóïà http://www.innit.ru/files/articles/innovations/article11.pdf (äàòà îá-ðàùåíèÿ: 10.10.2011).
Kerstin Pezoldt, Anne Michaelis, University of Technology, Ilmenau, Germany