Not answering your question, I would expect the main contributing factors to be the same as everywhere.

One man's innovation is another man's loss. This is why power distribution affects conditions for innovation - people with power always fight against innovation bringing them loss.

A libertarian society is better than a corporate society then, and a corporate society is better than an authoritarian society.

Then there's the incentive for innovation - if it brings one power, then one will work for it, and if it doesn't - less likely.

This is why a libertarian society is worse than a libertarian society minus some patent protection, but better than one where patents are strong and do not reflect inventiveness and are used to gatekeep markets.

This is also why China is more innovative than Russia - in China some efficiency in actually making things makes one more powerful, but in Russia power is purely a matter of capturing it.

Political parties calling for deregulation usually in fact call for token deregulation in some areas and more regulation where their corporate sponsors need it.

Deregulation in patent and IP law is a good thing. The thing is - it's not the same as most other laws, it's the fight over definition of property on an enormous amount of value. It was treated without sufficient attention, so now it's pretty bad.

I think any real change in that would require something similar to a revolution. Everywhere, especially in countries home to corporations built on such legal framework.