Innovation and R&D activities have significant effects on economic development and firm success. Innovation is a key factor in economic development through productivity gains. However, firms do not perform the socially optimal level of innovation due to market failures. Therefore, innovation activity is largely supported by governments for both developed and developing countries with the aim of creating additionality. While additionality effects from government supports are widely discussed for developed countries, there is scarce evidence for developing countries. The aim of this article is to analyse innovation behaviour of Turkish firms based on firm characteristics. Further, the behavioural additionality of government support is also analysed in order to provide a full picture. For this aim, the innovation structure is analysed using a multinomial logit model and the additionality effects are analysed using the propensity score matching (PSM) technique. Results indicate that firms that are profit-oriented, produce for the internal market and have an internal R&D unit, are more likely to implement organization and/or marketing innovation in comparison with product innovation. In addition, the same pattern is observed in companies that received government support. The results additionality indicate positive effects on behavioural additionality; however, this effect is evaluated to be limited.

Economic resilience consists of the decisions taken by firms in order to face decreasing demand (during an economic crisis) while maintaining a functional economic structure so that they may then return to business as usual after the crisis has passed. In addition, it refers to how the population acts in order to stay in the labour market and maintain their standard of living. The educational structure must fit the needs of firms. This study relies on three datasets at the NUTS V level for the Central Development Region in Romania for the demographic, labour market and educational structure: the situation in 2008, the evolution of the three structures during the crisis period (2009–2011), and the evolution of the above-mentioned structures during the 2012–2019 post-crisis period. The migration of people with a domicile from urban areas to rural areas was associated with a decrease in the number of employees and the unemployed in urban areas (big and medium-sized cities) simultaneously with an increase in the unemployed population in rural areas. The unemployed moved their domiciles from urban areas to peri-urban areas, commuting to the cities. There were people who moved their residence from small cities to big and medium-sized ones. The post-crisis economic recovery was quick and the economic structure remained functional during the crisis.

This study examines the role of perceptions about environmental regulations and their influence on the innovative performance and productivity of firms in Germany, Southern Europe, and Central and Eastern Europe. Utilizing the CDM model for innovative performance and data stemming from the Community Innovation Survey (CIS), we explore the alignment with the Porter hypothesis, which posits that well-designed environmental regulations can stimulate technological innovation and enhance market competitiveness. Our findings present a mixed view: in Germany, positive perceptions about environmental regulations correlate with the initiation of innovation activities, contributing to an increase in labour productivity. This supports the Porter hypothesis, evidencing that regulations can lead to beneficial ‘innovation offsets’ such as reduced resource use and pollution. Conversely, in Southern Europe and Central and Eastern Europe, the perceptions about these regulations on innovation activities are insignificant, with no considerable correlation observed between perceptions about environmental regulations and innovation output. Our findings are crucial for policymakers, environmental regulators, and business leaders aiming to leverage environmental regulations to boost innovation and competitiveness within their regions.

This research aims to identify the features and characteristics of the policies of the European Union and Central Asian countries in the sphere of human rights by examining the main vectors and elements of governance at the national and international levels. The research methodology consists of system analysis, which reviews the general situation in the field of civil rights, outlines the problems of protection activities in individual states and regions, and identifies key areas for improvement. The basic elements and components of the activity of the European Union countries in the sphere of protection of fundamental human rights are considered, and the distinctive features of this type of activity in the Central Asian countries are outlined. Positive and negative tendencies of the legal protection of human rights in separate Central Asian states as well as probable scenarios of further development of the sphere in the region are presented. The uniqueness and peculiarities of the Republic of Kazakhstan’s policy in the sphere of human rights protection as a key vector in the process of development of a democratic state are studied. Based on the results, practical recommendations are presented to improve the process of formation of the activity of the Republic in the sphere of human rights and freedoms.

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) questions have taken on increasing importance within the mathematics community recently and generated substantial debate. This article focuses on data collection, data analysis and evidence-based policy for EDI in the context of the UK mathematics higher education sector. It proposes that targeted latitudinal surveys and longitudinal studies would be useful to quantify experiences of disadvantage or discrimination but cautions against hasty conclusions from the data obtained. It notes that topics related to equality and diversity are politically controversial and emphasizes the importance of academic freedom in data analysis. It argues that EDI action should be based on evidence of disadvantage or discrimination rather than on the existence of quantitative disparities in outcomes. Finally, it reflects upon the importance of gathering balanced data on the effects of EDI policies in order to measure their costs and benefits.