Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##

Management, Public management and administration

June 19, 2026; Cambridge, UK: X International Scientific and Practical Conference «EDUCATION AND SCIENCE OF TODAY: INTERSECTORAL ISSUES AND DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCES»


IDIS AS AN INSTITUTIONAL MODEL OF THE ENTREPRENEURIAL STATE: GOVERNANCE ARCHITECTURE AND INTERNATIONAL ANALOGUES


DOI
https://doi.org/10.36074/logos-19.06.2026.012
Published
30.06.2026

Abstract

This article substantiates the institutional design of the Institute of State Innovation Support (IDIS) as a concrete embodiment of the entrepreneurial state concept (Mazzucato) adapted for the post-conflict governance context of Ukraine. Drawing on New Public Governance theory (Osborne), transaction cost economics (Coase, Williamson) and governance network theory (Rhodes), the article proposes a governance architecture in which IDIS operates as a hybrid public agency: combining a public strategic mandate with market-discipline mechanisms. The governance architecture is structured across five layers: strategic (parliamentary mandate and sunset review), oversight (independent supervisory board), operational (standardised package development), digital verification (ProZorro-principle platform + e-hryvnia DLT registry), and market discipline (differentiated guarantee deposit). A comparative analysis with Innovate UK, EIC Accelerator, DARPA/ARPA-E and Israel's Yozma programme confirms that IDIS is unique in simultaneously combining self-sustainability (revolving fund), market discipline and sector neutrality. A typological comparison across seven criteria demonstrates IDIS's structural advantages over classic subsidies, PPPs and grants. Scientific novelty: the article introduces the concept of «accountability by design» as the defining architectural principle of a new class of post-conflict public innovation institutions.

References

  1. Nehoda, Y., Tkachuk, V., Kostiuk, V., Zharikova, O., & Bytiutskyi, I. (2025). Green energy funding in Ukraine. Rural Sustainability Research, 53(348), 100–108. https://doi.org/10.2478/plua-2025-0009
  2. Mazzucato, M. (2013). The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths. Anthem Press.
  3. Osborne, S. P. (2010). The New Public Governance: Emerging Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Public Governance. Routledge.
  4. Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.x
  5. Coase, R. H. (1937). The Nature of the Firm. Economica, 4(16), 386–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0335.1937.tb00002.x
  6. Williamson, O. E. (1985). The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. Free Press.
  7. European Commission. (2024). Ukraine Facility: Implementation Framework. Brussels: EC.
  8. Innovate UK. (2024). Annual Report and Accounts 2023–24. UK Research and Innovation.
  9. European Innovation Council. (2024). EIC Accelerator: Programme Guide. Brussels: European Commission.
  10. ARPA-E. (2024). About ARPA-E. U.S. Department of Energy. https://arpa-e.energy.gov/about
  11. Avnimelech, G., & Teubal, M. (2006). Creating venture capital industries that co-evolve with high tech: Insights from an extended industry life cycle perspective of the Israeli experience. Research Policy, 35(10), 1477–1498.
  12. Bytiutskyi, I., & Kostiuk, V. (2026). Institutional de-risking as a new state financial model for strategic industries: The case of green hydrogen in Ukraine. Débats Scientifiques et Orientations Prospectives du Développement Scientifique. Paris. https://doi.org/10.36074/logos-05.06.2026
  13. Bytiutskyi, I. (2026). Programmable public finance as a vector of digital governance development. Grail of Science, 69. https://doi.org/10.36074/grail-of-science.29.05.2026
  14. Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997). Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability. Open University Press.
  15. Fukuyama, F. (2013). What is governance? Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 26(3), 347–368. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12035