Systemic features of innovation development in the USA

At the same time, competition from China is constantly growing, particularly in the field of science. In the past seven years, China has surpassed the United States in terms of the number of scientific and technical journal articles per USD billion PPP GDP (Table 5).

Table 5

Number of scientific and technical journal articles per USD billion PPP GDP (the USA and China, 2017-2023). (Source: [37, 38])

For a long time, China has significantly outpaced the United States in the overall number of patent grants (direct and PCT national phase entries). The number of Chinese patents in the U.S. is consistently growing, while the dynamics of American patents by origin are ambiguous. In 2021-2022, China started to surpass the USA in patents in force (Table 6).

Table 6

Main indicators of patenting developments in the USA and China from 2017 to 2021. (Source: [37])

The strong points and relatively weak areas of the USA innovation system are reflected in the components of the Global Innovation Index. The United States' unquestionably strong points continue to be "Market sophistication" and "Business sophistication". The country has also seen significant improvements in "Knowledge and technology outputs", but some decline in "Infrastructure" and "Creative outputs" (Table 7). Conversely, China has substantially improved its positions across most components of the GII from 2017 to 2023, demonstrating progress in building its NIS and realizing innovative opportunities. This prompts the United States to intensify its state innovation policy.

Table 7

Global Innovation Index rankings overall and by innovation pillar: USA and China. (Source: [38])

5. State innovation policy. Today, experts highlight significant shortcomings in the U.S. government's innovation policy, such as its fragmentation, poor coordination among departments, reduced funding for universities and laboratories, misalignment with current tasks and priorities, and more [3]. Attention to the effectiveness of innovation support is intensifying primarily due to economic challenges, new environmental issues, and competition from China, as evidenced by a series of documents (Meeting the China Challenge: A New American Strategy for Technology Competition, 2020; Taking the Helm: A National Technology Strategy to Meet the China Challenge, 2021) [34; 35]. Therefore, the agenda being formed is comprehensive and related to the transition to sustainable development, the preservation of technological leadership, and the enhancement of competitiveness, which requires historical efforts. This is confirmed by the adoption of a number of laws and strategies in the United States, including [26; 34; 35]: Innovation and National Security (2019), Competing in the Next Economy (2020), Science and Technology Action Plan (2020), Energy Act (2020), Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (2021), National Long-Term Climate Strategy (2021), The United States Innovation and Competition Act (2021); Executive Action to Spur Domestic Clean Energy Manufacturing (2022), CHIPS and Science Act (2022), U.S. Innovation to Meet 2050 Climate Goals: Assessing R&D Initial Opportunities (2022), Inflation Reduction Act (2022), U.S. Transportation Decarbonization Blueprint (2023), America COMPETES Act (2022), American Innovation Act (2023), National innovation pathway of the US (2023), etc. This indicates a reassessment of the state's role in innovation development, accompanied by intensification and the emergence of a new type of innovation policy, aimed at purposefully transforming the economic model, production system, structural and social changes through innovation support. These manifestations are summarized in Figure 2.

Due to the intensified technological competition from China, the United States has effectively returned to industrial policy in a new capacity - industrial-innovation policy, encompassing a wide range of non-defense sectors and fields, notably alternative energy and healthcare, promoting the development of specific technologies. The essence of this policy lies in targeted state intervention in various stages of innovation activity following R&D, aiming to accelerate the implementation and dissemination of innovative technologies in the economy. State intervention is motivated by considerations of national security, addressing climate and social issues, including unemployment. Given the spectrum of issues addressed, sectoral directions, and participants, this industrial-innovation policy is significantly diversified and represents a specific "menu" of measures determined in each particular case.

Figure 2. Changes in the U.S. government's innovation policy. (Sources: compiled by the authors based on the materials [26; 34; 35])

This is a new format for implementing state innovation policy in a market economy that should not distort its fundamentals. Against this backdrop, the protection of intellectual property and public- private partnerships are being strengthened.

The main industrial and technological trends of modern innovation policy in the United States can be outlined as follows:

- advanced manufacturing, the new ecosystem of Industry 4.0 (automation, cognitive computing, smart factories, supply chain mapping, etc.);

- semiconductors, processors;

- advanced digital technologies (Internet of Things, Blockchain, Cloud Computing, Smart Spaces/Cities, Digital Assets, 5G Automated Vehicles, Artificial Intelligence, etc.);

- health science and biotechnology, genetic engineering, telemedicine;

- climate and environment, combating climate change;

- clean energy technologies;

- advanced military technologies, and so forth.

A broader range of directions requires corresponding measures and tools, which can be systematized, for example, through major national initiatives and programs, particularly targeting specific technologies (such as the National Artificial Intelligence Initiative, National Quantum Initiative, Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program, etc.) or general horizontal directions, such as the development of regional innovation clusters (Regional Technology and Innovation Hubs program, Regional Innovation Engines, Regional Innovation Clusters) or the enhancement of STEM education (for example, the initiative "The Raise the Bar: STEM Excellence for All Students").

An analysis of official materials from U.S. government authorities and programs in the field of science and technology support suggests that the most significant qualitative changes in innovation support measures and tools include:

- increasing the volume of federal funding for R&D, particularly long-term funding that encompasses university research and educational initiatives;

- financing research projects conducted by universities and laboratories, the results of which will be commercialized through partnerships with businesses;

- funding projects aimed at job creation and infrastructure development, primarily for clean energy generation;

- providing tax incentives to businesses (including with regard to the income of American multinational corporations earned abroad) for investing in R&D, including academic research, and the related infrastructure;

- creating financial incentives for businesses through government procurement with flexible contracting mechanisms;

- subsidizing small and medium-sized start-up enterprises in the field of innovation;

- tax benefits for consumers and businesses in specific areas, such as green technologies [7; 13; 34; 35].

The use of direct support measures is complemented by actions to restrict competition from China, such as controlling the export of critical technologies (sanctions, prohibiting the transfer of intellectual property and technology, supply of chips, software, and technologies for their development and production), and investment restrictions for Chinese companies with "sensitive" technologies [30; 32; 34; 35], thereby changing the quality of trade and investment regulation policy.

Discussion

In the coming years, the global innovation leadership of the United States will be maintained, as in the existing economic paradigm, the country has the most suitable systemic features for innovation development, which are sustainable and create an effective mechanism in the form of a NIS. The conducted research provides a more substantiated examination of the systemic features of innovation development in the United States, complementing the work of J. Kornai [19] and laying the groundwork for comparison with China. This research, delving deeper into American capitalism through innovation, also allows for the subsequent assessment of corresponding variations in the capitalism of other countries, such as those in the European Union, the Republic of Korea, or Japan [22]. Considering the significance of innovation, studying the systemic conditions for innovation generation enables a greater understanding of how contemporary capitalism facilitates progress [15] and economic growth [24] within a chosen trajectory [33].

The greatest contribution of this research lies in the concept of the NIS, the formation of which occurs within the framework of nationally specific civilizational, institutional, and economic conditions that are of fundamental importance [3]. This will enable the creation of a broader context for comparing the innovation systems of different countries, complementing the narrow-focused analysis [18]. Based on the nature of innovations, a broader analysis of historical circumstances, the combination of civilizational, institutional, political, social, and economic conditions that determine innovation performance in a particular country seems to be necessary. For example, this pertains to the specifics of the capitalist model in a particular country, which may not foster an orientation of the economy towards innovation. Similarly, an analysis of the basic conditions for the formation and implementation of state innovation policy, which is the manifestation of more systemic factors, is necessary [7; 11; 13].

Conclusions

The development of innovation in different countries exhibits a predictable national specificity that determines the origins of innovation performance. The systemic characteristics of the innovation development process in the United States include:

- civilizational factors that influence the population and businesses' inclination towards innovation;

- an institutional system that implements a liberal market ideology and provides clear "rules of the game", ensuring long-term planning horizons and reducing risks;

- an economic system in which the inherent properties of capitalism that stimulate innovation are manifested, fostering a unique innovation culture, a developed financial system, a stock market, and more;

- an innovation system that brings together major technological companies, small and medium businesses, leading universities worldwide, the venture capital market, and startup support infrastructure.

The main factors intensifying innovation performance in the United States include the combination of entrepreneurial and large-firm capitalism, venture investment, territorial agglomerations of innovative structures, and high-tech clusters. Key sources of innovation in the United States are the military sector, universities, and non-profit organizations, all of which contribute significantly to the national specificity of innovation activities. The U.S. innovation system remains immensely powerful in scale, although at times its parameters may deteriorate. Meanwhile, China continues to expand its indicators of scientific activity and innovative capabilities. Considering the new challenges associated with solving economic and environmental problems and competitive pressure from China, the United States is intensifying its state innovation policy, which is taking on a transformative character, focusing on green transition, breakthrough innovations, and increasingly employing direct methods to support innovation activities in the industry. The identification of the systemic features of innovation development in the United States complements the theory of innovation and the concept of the NIS, enabling a more comprehensive comparison of the political and economic systems between the United States and other global leaders in the field of innovation. Future research will be directed towards this objective.

References

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (2023)

2. Atkinson, R.D. (2014). Understanding the United States National Innovation System. ITIF.

3. Atkinson, R.D. (2020, November 2). Understanding the United States National Innovation System, 2020. Information Technology & Innovation Foundation.

4. Baumol, W.J. (2004). Entrepreneurial enterprises, large established firms and other components of the free-market growth machine. Small business economics, 25(1), 9-24.

5. Baumol, W.J. (2010). The Micmthepry of Innovative Entrepreneurship. Princeton University Press.

6. Bonnet, C., Hache, E., Seek, G.S., Simoёn, M., & Carcanague, S. (2019). Who's winning the low-carbon innovation race? An assessment of countries' leadership in renewable energy technologies. International Economics, 160, 31-42.

7. Bonvillian, W.B. (2022). Industrial Innovation Policy in the United States. Annals of Science and Technology Policy, 6(4), 315-411

8. CBinsights (2023).

9. Chien, F., Ananzeh, M., Mirza, F., Bakar, A., Vu, H.M., & Ngo, T.Q. (2021). The effects of green growth, environmental-related tax, and eco-innovation towards carbon neutrality target in the US economy. Journal of Environmental Management, 299(1), Article 113633.

10. Chunmei, Y., & Wenyi, M. (2016). The United States High Technology Export Control Towards China. Journal of Business, 1(2), 13-16.

11. Conn, R.W., Crow, MM., Friend, C.M., & McNutt, M. (2021, July 12). The Next 75 Years of US Science and Innovation Policy: An Introduction. Issues in Science and Technology.

12. Cummings, C.L., Kuzma, J., Kokotovich, A., Glas, D., & Grieger K. (2021). Barriers to responsible innovation of nanotechnology applications in food and agriculture: A study of US experts and developers. NanoImpact, 23,

Article 100326.

13. Deleidi, M., & Mazzucato, M. (2021). Directed innovation policies and the supermultiplier: An empirical assessment of mission-oriented policies in the US economy. Research Policy, 50(2), Article 104151.

14. Fagerberg, J., Srholec, M., & Verspagen, B. (2010). Chapter 20 - Innovation and Economic Development. Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, 2, 833-872.

15. Funk, J. (2017). What Does Innovation Today Tell Us About the US Economy Tomorrow? Issues in Science and Technology, 34(1).

16. Huang, S., Shi, Y., Chen, Q., & Li, X. (2022). The growth path of high-tech industries: Statistical laws and evolution demands. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 603, Article 127719.

17. Jin, C., Xu, A., Zhu, Y., & Li, J. (2023). Technology growth in the digital age: Evidence from China. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 187, Article 122221

18. Kang, D., Jang, W., Kim, Y., & Jeon, J. (2019). Comparing National Innovation System among the USA, Japan, and Finland to Improve Korean Deliberation Organization for National Science and Technology Policy. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 5(4), Article 82.

19. Kornai, J. (2012). Innovation and Dynamism: Interaction between Systems and Technical Progress. In: Roland, G. (eds) Economies in Transition. Studies in Development Economics and Policy. Paigrave Macmillan, London.

20. Lazonick, W. (2002). Innovative Enterprise and Historical Transformation. Enterprise & Society: The International Journal of Business History, 3(1), 3-47.

21. Lazonick, W. (2003). The innovative firm. In J. Fagerberg, Mowery, R. Nelson (Eds.) The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp.29-55). Oxford University Press.

22. Lazonick, W. (2007). Varieties of Capitalism and Innovative Enterprise. Comparative Social Research, 24, 21-69.

23. Liu, M., Guo, J., & Bi, D. (2023). Comparison of administrative and regulatory green technologies development between China and the USA based on patent analysis. Data Science and Management, 6(1), 34-45.

24. Moutinho, V., Santos de Oliveira, H.M., De Oliveira, H.V. & Puime Guillen, F. (2023). The augmented and integrative model of economic growth: Theoretical and empirical evidence from USA. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 89, Article 101673.

25. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (2023). National Science Foundation.

26. National Science Foundation (2023). The State pfU.S. Science and Engineering 2022. National Science Board.

27. OECD.Stat (2023). OECD.

28. O'Shaughnessy, E., Ardani, K., Denholm, P., Mai, T., Silverman, T., Zuboy, J., & Margolis, R. (2022). Policy- driven solar innovation and deployment remains critical for US grid decarbonization. Joule, 6(9), 1965-1968.

29. QS World University Rankings (2023).

30. Shi, W. (2022). Trade Wars: A Prism of the US, EU and China. Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace, & Conflict (Third Edition), 3, 274-282.

31. Startup Genome (2023).

32. Sun, H. (2019). U.S.-China Tech War. China Quarterly of International Strategic Studies, 05(02), 197-212.

33. Talebzadehhosseini, S., & Garibay, I. (2022). The interaction effects of technological innovation and path- dependent economic growth on countries overall green growth performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 333, Article 130134.

34. The White House (2023).

35. U.S. Department of State (2023).

36. Wang, Q.-J., Feng, G.-F., Wang, H.-J., & Chang, C.-P. (2021). The impacts of democracy on innovation: Revisited evidence. Technovation, 108, Article 102333.

37. World Intellectual Property Organization (2023).

38. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) (2023). Global Innovation Index 2023: Innovation in the face of uncertainty. Geneva: WIPO.

39. Zandiatashbar, A., & Hamidi, S. (2022). Exploring the microgeography and typology of U.S. high-tech clusters. Cities, 131, Article 103973.

Размещено на Allbest.Ru