EVOLUTION OF CONCEPTUAL APPROACHES TO INNOVATION FINANCING: FROM CLASSICAL MODELS TO THE ECOSYSTEM APPROACH

Abstract

The article examines the evolution of conceptual approaches to innovation financing — from classical theoretical models to the contemporary ecosystem paradigm. Using comparative analysis and a historical-genetic methodology, the study systematizes the principal theoretical schools that have shaped the intellectual landscape of innovation finance: the Schumpeterian tradition, the linear model of the innovation process, the market failure framework, the venture capital model, the Triple Helix concept, open innovation, national innovation systems, and mission-oriented innovation policy.

The analysis reveals a consistent internal logic underlying conceptual transformations: each successive model emerged as a response to empirically documented limitations of its predecessor. The Schumpeterian model established the foundational link between innovation, entrepreneurship, and bank credit, yet neglected informational asymmetry and institutional context. The linear model introduced stage-based thinking but failed to account for the non-linear, iterative nature of real innovation processes and left the financing gap — the so-called "valley of death" — conceptually unexplained. The market failure framework provided a rigorous economic rationale for public intervention through subsidies, grants, and tax incentives, but generated a symmetrical problem of government failure. The venture capital model institutionalized risk management through staged financing and monitoring mechanisms, yet proved geographically concentrated and structurally ill-suited for deep technology sectors with long development horizons. The Triple Helix and open innovation models shifted analytical attention to inter-institutional dynamics and knowledge flows, while the national innovation systems perspective embedded financial institutions within broader institutional configurations. Mission-oriented approaches rehabilitated the active role of the state as a first-instance investor in technologies avoided by private capital.

Practical implications are formulated for Ukraine in the context of wartime economy and post-war reconstruction, emphasizing the priority of blended finance instruments, capital recycling mechanisms, and digital public infrastructure as catalysts for entrepreneurial ecosystem development.