Development of creative potential as the main competitive advantage of national economy

Emergence of the global economy as the reality of 21st century led to change in the paradigm of economic development. In the intercon­nected and equally polarized world of the uneven distribution of re­sources and wealth, the search for new sources of economic develop­ment is an integral part of national policies and global modeling.

Almost all countries, including economic leaders, face the prob­lem of ability to develop in the knowledge economy paradigm, while overcoming negative competitive impacts and adequately re­sponding to the challenges of global crisis. In the U.S. where unique conditions for the full functioning of reproductive science and technology cycles in almost all sectors and industries due to the concentration of the world's most productive intellectual re­source were created in 21st century, the problem of ensuring the innovation leadership and global competitiveness is continuously emerging full blown at the nationwide level. The EU experts also argue that the ensuring of well-established dynamics and competi­tiveness of the European economy would be made possible only in an environment where over the next few years a key priority of its development will be a so-called triangle of knowledge, i.e., crea­tion, transfer and use of knowledge through research, education, vocational training and innovation. The knowledge- and innova­tion-driven models of development at some point provided the competitiveness of «Asian tigers» — Japan, South Korea, Singa­pore, Taiwan, Hong Kong. The current strategies of Singapore («Intelligent Island»), South Korea («E-Korea»), China («Cap­ture of 21st Century with Knowledge») are ambitions revealing and largely set a pace of economic development of the modern world and become innovation modulators of the global economy by transforming their economies from commodity production to intel­lectual and creative persistently [1, p. 74].

The potential belonging to the innovation values of the knowl­edge economy in their strategies and development programs is de­clared by India, Brazil, Russia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, the Baltic States. However, to do this, as stressed by Tuyen, it is necessary to reform the economic system itself, which, in our opinion, is extremely challenging and promising task for the above-mentioned countries. However, one cannot ignore the find­ings of Peter Drucker with regard to the thought that in the fu­ture there will not be any poor countries and will be only indifferent when the underdevelopment will be determined by weak state governance [4].

The purpose of the paper is to substantiate the importance of combination of the intellectually creative potential of a society and the world's scientific and technological achievements for the effec­tive implementation in the national economic development strategy of conceptual framework of the knowledge economy as a decisive factor for progress in the context of globalization. The conclu­sions are, according to the authors, relevant to Ukraine, which, being at the beginning of its transformation towards the knowl­edge economy, faces difficulties with the development of a modern economic development strategy.

The interpretation of knowledge as a separate essential element of economic activity is not comparatively new. Thus, in the early 20th century Joseph Schumpeter proposed the theory of «creative destruction» as a process of absolute transformation of the econ­omy due to a combination of expertise and innovative processes. F. Machlup first used the term «knowledge economy» in 1962 in his book «Production and Dissemination of Knowledge in the U.S.», where he referred to «knowledge» in the broad economic sense, noting that the allocation of resources in the areas of education and research activities is a major economic component, and the economy of education and the economy of research are the most dynamic new areas of economy specialization [3].

In the context of evolution of competitive development sources, a plausible opinion is the one of Joseph Stiglitz with regard to that the knowledge and information are generated today just as easily as cars and steel were made hundreds of years ago, and such people as Bill Gates, knowing ways for production of knowledge and information, reap the fruits more effectively than others and become tycoons similarly to those who knew how to produce cars and steel a hundred of years ago [6]. He also stressed that knowledge should be recognized not only as a social but also a global public good and thus has collective responsibility of the international community for the creation and dissemination of knowledge for the benefit of development.

In other words, today competitive advantages are forming in the area of generation of knowledge, which in turn is reflected in innovations. Thus, the modern human capital includes not just the ability to collect and accumulate information but also the skills to transform it into knowledge that can be applied to practical solu­tion of strategic problems of economic development. Moreover, in the structure of economic relations in 21st century not just human capital, but the intellectual one which takes shape of intangible products and assets shall dominate. Thus, the transition from the industrial stage to the post-industrial information stage in the knowledge economy paradigm becomes point-blank.

According to the definition by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), «The knowledge economy or the knowledge-based economy is the economy directly based on the creation, distribution and use of knowledge and information») [6]. Access to knowledge, innovation, communication in the modern conditions is not just an independent factor of development — it is decisive. The evaluation of phenomena of informa­tion, new and virtual economies is encouraged, which requires un­biased independent research, as in the depths of Internet not only «virtual economy» but also «virtual politics», «virtual diplomacy, «virtual culture», «virtual education» emerge. It becomes obvious that informglobalism dominant in almost all the global markets leads to operating by its participants not only virtual assets and li­abilities but also virtual knowledge in ever increasing amounts. Multimedia companies globally organized actually suppress through the influence of non-economic and non-coercive character immediately on people's mind the individuality and intellect, while ruthlessly exploiting them. The illusion of absence of limitations obvious for the traditional mind makes a human being more free with regard to realizing his potential, thereby increasing the social productivity. At the same time, the unprecedented online mass­media impact on the conscience made possible actually formalizes the most areas of life, imposes on the society the global pseudocul­ture standards. However, the realities of the information age stimulate the intellectual individualism, as the most creative part of the information values of civilization is not on physical media (hard disks, CD, web servers), but in the minds of people, their skills, talents, awareness and sensitivity to the creative self- development.

In general, the prerequisites of modern economic methodology are formed in the study of globalization, which in its unprece­dented manifestation is a source and stimulant of competitive de­velopment and progress, being at the same time not linear and homogeneous, as its costs and benefits are unevenly, asynchro­nously and disproportionately distributed, especially in the crosscountry terms.

The global economy which is emerging may be considered, on the one hand, as a subjectively, functionally and institutionally structured multilevel system which main integrating element is the global market. On the other hand, at present there is no question as to the universality and perfection of the system, but rather to: global availability of resources and innovations; global nature of factor mobility; global market unification and regulatory harmoni­zation; global individualization and corporatization; regional and continental consolidation; synchronization of rates and levels of economic development in a cyclic crisis presence; global sociolization and politicization of economic relations. In the structure of multi-mode and mixed global economy of early 21st century there are segments of pre-industrialism, industrialism and post-industrialism, enclaves of information, new, virtual, innovation, intellectual and creative economies [4; 5].

In the situation where knowledge has become a key factor of economic growth and progress, economists have to explore new ways for most of their incorporation into innovative theories, mod­els and practices.

Globalization causes the ever increasing impact on the economic development of Ukraine as external challenges under conditions of high openness of the national economy are becoming more notice­able. This also applies to the traditional raw material oriented and energy-intensive industries, which experience the severe impact of global price situation and especially to innovative segments of the economy, that are directly dependent on orientation of the state and business on the generation and commercialization of knowl­edge.

The main reasons that hinder the effective implementation of innovation and technological model of the Ukrainian economy de­velopment include: immaturity of the national innovation system; a low level of financing the innovation sector; low innovation ac­tivity of domestic enterprises and weak links between actors in the innovation sector, a low level of research works in the business sector; a low level of innovation commercialization; a scanty de­mand for innovative products by the industrial sector; weak scien­tific and technological exchange; an extremely low level of pat­enting of domestic inventions with foreign patent organizations; a lack of national venture capital market and competition in the in­novation entrepreneurship; underdevelopment of the legal frame­work governing the innovation sector. This is followed by a rapid decline in the quality of education, research degradation of both retrospectively productive institutes of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and leading domestic universities. Instead, the advanced forms of intellectual capital concentration and intensifi­cation of innovation activities well proven in the world, such as clusters, technoparks, technopolises, are scarcely used in Ukraine.

Although, in principle, we can talk about a minimum regu­latory support of organization of progressive forms of innovative development in the economy of Ukraine (Law of Ukraine «On In­novation», Law of Ukraine «On Special Regime of Innovation Ac­tivity of Technology Parks», the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine «On Approval of Regulation on Procedure for Establishment and Operation of Technoparks and Other Types of Innovative Structures», the Resolution of the Cabinet of Minis­ters of Ukraine «On Approval of Concept of National Innovation System Development» and other regulatory legal acts of Ukraine), their occurrence is not only fragmented but statistically inconsistent. Moreover, it never comes to the organization and operation of innovation clusters in the official programs and national statis­tics, although, given the experience of South Korea, in particular, it could be argued that it was clusters of this type that appeared to be the most effective during the evolution of forms of concen­tration of innovation activities to enhance the competitiveness of regions.

However, the formation of motivation and practical actions to transit to the knowledge economy most naturally occurs in the countries where not only technological, but also micro- and macro- economic conditions have been established.

The importance and primary role of the knowledge economy in the transformation processes of 21st century are inarguable in theoretical and practical terms, when pioneering technological and organizational ideas have become a major driving force for eco­nomic progress.

Despite the innovative development priorities of Ukraine's economy repeatedly declared at all levels, it has not been man­aged so far to create in it a competitive environment and inno­vative climate, to significantly increase the innovation motiva­tion of economic entities, to optimally use the limited financial resources for research and technological modernization. This situation not only discredits the existing national innovation ca­pacity, but is unacceptable for the country with pretensions to formation of the knowledge economy that is increasingly as­suming the characteristics of creativity in its progressing seg­ments.

Under the present conditions, when the economic theory in­terprets mainly quantitative transformations apparently late in traditional paradigms only, producing respective baseline characteristics of the economy, and differentiated economic sciences demonstrate their methodological inability as to the knowledge economy paradigm, it is necessary to study and evaluate new globalization challenges and contradictions. Recognition of im­portance to transform the traditional economy into the knowl­edge-intensive one by the developing countries and not just by the leading countries can be a turning point in achieving the general civilizational progress, ensuring social and economic stability and changing an asymmetric model of the global economy of 21st century.

References

1.             Dahlman, Carl and Thomas Andersson. Korea and the Knowledge- Based Economy: Making the Transition. — World Bank Publications // International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. — World Bank 2000. - Pp. 152

2.             Innovations in Ukraine: the European experience and recommendations for Ukraine. — Volume 3. Innovations in Ukraine: Proposals for political actions: final version (draft of 19.10.2011). — K.: Phoenix, 2011. — p.76. [in Ukrainian]

3.             Machlup, Fritz. The Production and Distribution of Knowledge in the United States. — Princeton: Princeton University Press. — 1962. — Pp. 460.

4.             Peter F. Drucker. Management. Challenges of 21st century: Transl. from English. — M.: publishing house Mann, Ivanov and Ferber, 2012. — 256 p. [in Russian]

5.             Schumpeter, Joseph A. The Process of Creative Destruction. From Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. — New York: Harper. — 1975 (Original publication 1942).

6.             Stiglitz, Joseph. Knowledge for Development: Economic Science, Economic Policy, and Economic Advice. — World Bank Conference on Development Economics. — Washington, D.C. — April 20-21. — 1998.