N. Sirenko, O. Melnyk, I. Barishevskaya. Creative class of knowledge economy

N. Sirenko

O. Melnyk

I. Barishevskaya

The article studies how the knowledge economy is one of the sectors playing a decisive role in the functioning of the economic system.

It is shown that, at the moment, scientists are not unanimous in their definition of  “the knowledge economy” and “the innovative economy”. So, L. Mindey and L. Pipia define them as synonyms. I. Kondaurov and O. Khasnutdinova point out that the knowledge economy should be considered systematically and comprehensively in the broadest sense. In this case, it acts as: an innovative economy; post-industrial economy; information economy; global network economy. At the same time, they emphasize that the theoretical premise of the knowledge economy in an historical context is the idea of ​​innovation, and accordingly, an innovative economy.

It is demonstrated that effective development of the knowledge economy takes place on the condition of interpreting three relatively independent spheres of social activity: 1) education and training; 2) R & D and innovations; 3) information and communication technologies. At the same time, the key factor in production is intellectual capital, intangible assets, information and communication. It is sufficiently important to provide the necessary conditions for the development of a knowledge-based economy.

Further exploration shows that today, one of the key tasks facing the majority of nation states is developing their creative industries in order to strengthen their competitive advantage in the global market.

The most significant contribution to the development of the theory of the creative class was introduced by sociologist R. Florida, who divides it into two subclasses – the super-creative core and creative specialists. To “suprareative nucleus”, he has assigned professions in the following areas: programming and mathematics; Architecture and engineering; natural and social sciences; education and science; education and library affairs; art; design; entertainment; sport; and the media. The subclass of “creative specialists” includes: managers; Professions in business and finance; health care professionals; high-tech production specialists; executive positions related to sales, etc. Investigations reveal that the main qualities inherent in the creative class are: youth, high productivity, independence, entrepreneurship, and a high level of education.

Keywords: knowledge economy, innovative economy, innovations, creative industry, creative class, entrepreneurship.


  1. Doktryna ekonomiky znan // pmonline.org.ua›…php/202…DOKTRYNA EKONOMIKY ZNAN…
  2. Ekonomika znan ta yii perspektyvy dlia Ukrainy / [V. M. Heiets, V. P. Aleksandrova, Yu. M. Bazhal ta in.] ; za red. V. M. Heitsia. – K. : In-t ekonomichnoho prohnozuvannia NAN Ukrainy, 2005. – 168 s.
  3. Ekonomichna entsyklopediia : u 3-kh t. / vidp. red. S. V. Mochernyi. – K. : Akademiia, 2002. – T. 3. – 952 s.
  4. Kondaurova I. O. Vid industrialnoi ekonomiky do ekonomiky znan / I. O. Kondaurova, O. M. Khasnutdinova // Visnyk Khmelnytskoho natsionalnoho universytetu. Ekonomichni nauky. – 2010. – № 4, T. 1. – S. 235-238.
  5. Makarov V. L. Ekonomyka znanyi // Vestnyk RAN. – 2003. – T. 73. № 5. – S. 450-456.
  6. Myndely L. E. Kontseptualnyie aspektyi formyrovanyia ekonomyky znanyi / L. E. Myndely, L. K. Pypyia // Problemyi prohnozyrovanyia. – 2007. – № 3. – S. 115-136.
  7. Turskyi I. V. Vplyv kreatyvnoho klasu na ekonomichnu diialnist ta rehionalnyi rozvytok// International scientific conference “The global competitive environment: development of social and economic systems, (April 21, 2017, Chisinau, Republic of Moldova): Baltija Publishing. – S. 96-99.
  8. Turskyi I. V. Hlobalni ta rehionalni trendy kreatyvnykh industrii ta perspektyvy yikh rozvytku v Ukraini // elartu.tntu.edu.ua/…/HLOBALNI%20TA%20REHIONAL…
  9. Fedotova N. V. Vlyianye unyversytetov na ynnovatsyonnoe razvytye rehyona / N. V. Fedotova // Vestnyk Tomskoho hosudarstvennoho unyversyteta. – 2013. – № 1. – S. 91-104.
  10. Iakovenko L. I. Innovatsiinyi kharakter ekonomiky znan / L. I. Yakovenko // Visnyk Poltavskoi derzhavnoi ahrarnoi akademii .– 2010. – № 2. – S. 141-145.
  11. Department for culture, Media and sport. Creative industries programme. Creative industries mapping document. – London, 2001.
  12. Florida R. The Flight of the Creative Class. The New Global Competition for Talent. HarperBusiness, HarperCollins, 2005, 421 p.
  13. Florida, R., Mellander, C. and King, K. (2015). THE GLOBAL CREATIVITY INDEX 2015. Toront: Martin Prosperity Institute.
  14. The New Knowledge Economy in Europe. A Strategy for International Competitiveness and Social Cohesion / Ed. by Maria J Rodriges. – Edward Elgar Pbl., 2002.
  15. World Development Report (1998/99): Knowledge for Development. – The World Bank, 1999. – R. 266.

Features accumulation of wet weight and dry matter, photosynthetic activity in soybean cultivation in the South of Ukraine

UNC 001.895:338.43

Olga Melnyk.

The existing methodological approaches to the formation of scientific and innovative profile as a tool of comparative statistical analysis of scientific and technological capabilities and innovation activities of the country (region, industry) are discussed. It was established that two international organizations which activities are related to the collection and analysis of statistics on science, technology and innovation development of countries are the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural  Organization (UNESCO). They annually publish scientific and innovative profile of countries. The indicators listed in the UNESCO publication describe mainly scientific and technical potential of the country (region). The list of indicators proposed by the OECD is broader and allows characterizing both scientific and innovative components of different countries’ profiles. The methodological approaches to assessment of scientific and innovative profile which had been proposed by Russian scientists A. Zolotukhina and A. Frolov were characterized.

Thus, summing up the experience of the OECD and UNESCO, according to the methodology of A. Zolotukhina which was based on national statistical offices, the author had developed a method of forming scientific and innovative profile of the agrarian sector of Ukraine and its regions. The necessity of its formation was proved by the system of 17 indicators which were grouped into 5 blocks (educational, human, organizational, financial, and productive), and described by the scientific and technological innovation capacity in the “in-out” system (“resources-results”). Besides, it is necessary that all of the figures were comparable, which makes comparison of their relative values​​ possible, taking into account the peculiarities of the social and economic development of different regions of the country. To do this, all indicators ​​were converted to relative values ​​by means of comparison with specific territorial characteristics (number of economically active population, gross agricultural output, the number of business entities in the agrarian area and so on.). Calculation of indicators of scientific and innovative profile of the agrarian sector of Ukraine and its regions was made. It was established that the leaders of the majority of indicators are Kharkiv and Kyiv regions.

Formation of scientific and innovative profile of the agrarian sector using the proposed algorithm can be used to identify areas of further development of innovative entrepreneurship. It remains necessary to change the focus performance of indicators. It means that now the quantitative indicators of innovation and implementation of innovations are not important (for example, the number of derived varieties, and the area sown by them in Ukraine, etc.). In the future, it is advisable to give these data in statistical form for the survey of agricultural and research institutions in the agrarian sector.