Structural Contrasts and Potential of Complementarity of National Innovation Systems of Russia and Kazakhstan in the Context of EAEU Integration

2026

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.3390/su18041753
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

The formation of a unified innovation space is a key challenge for deepening Eurasian integration. This study aims to develop the concept of asymmetric complementarity by investigating how the structural asymmetry between the NIS of Russia and Kazakhstan can be transformed from a source of imbalance into a basis for strategic synergy. Based on a mixed methodology that includes quantitative analysis of data from the Global Innovation Index (GII) 2025, SWOT analysis, and scenario modeling, two divergent models were identified. Russia’s NIS is defined as “compensatory disbalanced” (strong human capital with weak institutions), while Kazakhstan’s NIS is defined as “institutionally focused with knowledge deficit” (relatively developed institutions with critically low R&D investment). The theoretical contribution of this work lies in developing the concept of asymmetric complementarity, which demonstrates that the identified structural differences create a foundation for synergistic cooperation. The practical conclusions are aimed at transitioning from rule harmonization to network capability integration, including the creation of distributed excellence centers, the development of “soft” type supranational infrastructure, and the implementation of the “innovative accounting” principle.