Modern technological transformations, closely related to globalization, and the human factor that provides them together form a new paradigm of socio-economic development and mark the historical transition from an industrial economy to a knowledge-based economy to the information society of the era of computer networks.
According to the definition proposed by the World Bank, the knowledge economy (KE) is a set of institutions whose interaction determines the formation of innovative production. EK uses the creation and consumption of knowledge as a key factor in accelerating economic growth and increasing competitiveness. As a rule, it includes such elements as long-term investments in science and education, development of innovative potential, modernization of information infrastructure and the creation of an economic environment conducive to market transactions. These elements form the new content of the economy, in which intangible assets and intellectual property, the ability for constant innovation, increased mobility and flexibility of production structures, and the latter’s readiness for integration and global competition begin to play a leading role.
Our country is in the very early stages of moving toward eHealth as a long-term goal. The need for innovative development of the national economy was ultimately embodied in the development and implementation of the State Program for Innovative Development of the Republic of Belarus for 2007 - 2010 (SPID-2010), the ideological core of which was the Concept of the National Innovation System of Belarus (NIS-2006).
The national innovation system is a set of interconnected organizations (structures) engaged in the production and commercial implementation of scientific knowledge and technologies within national borders: small and large companies, universities, government laboratories, technology parks and incubators. In addition, NIS is represented by a complex of legal, financial and social institutions that ensure innovative processes and have strong national roots, traditions, political and cultural characteristics.
The basic areas that create the foundation of the NIS are those integrating science, education, production and market:
Knowledge generation (science and its segments in other sectors);
Dissemination and application of knowledge (research and development, production of goods and services);
Commercialization of innovations (market of scientific and technical products, market institutions);
Education and training;
Innovation infrastructure, including financial support;
Management.
The state program for innovative development will be implemented in accordance with the priority areas of scientific and technical activity: energy and energy saving; agro-industrial technologies and production; industrial and construction technologies and production; medicine, medical equipment and technology, pharmacy; chemical, nano- and biotechnologies; information, communication and aerospace technologies; new materials; rational use of natural resources, resource conservation and protection from emergency situations; defense capability and national security.
One of the most important tasks of SPID is to transfer the national economy to an intensive development mode and ensure a positive foreign trade balance, solving the issue of import substitution. In this regard, in the current five-year period it is planned to direct all efforts, firstly, to the creation of high-tech enterprises and industries based on new technologies (information, nano-electron-optical, fine chemistry, biotechnologies, etc.) with high added value and low energy and material consumption; secondly, for the production of environmentally friendly (clean) materials and products.
One of the “engines” of advanced trends should be a new cluster in the field of nano- and bio-pharmaceutical production, which will receive a status similar to the High Technology Park, and where organizations of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus and research departments of higher education institutions will be concentrated. In 2011–2015 work will be intensified to create new production facilities in export-oriented industries (pharmaceutical, chemical, forestry, agricultural engineering, etc.). It is planned to implement over 900 projects, including the creation of about 20 enterprises and 200 production facilities, and the modernization of almost 140 enterprises.
As a result of the implementation of SPID activities, it is planned to achieve the following indicators:
The share of innovative products shipped by organizations: 2011 – 12-13%; 2015 – 20-21%;
The share of innovatively active organizations in the total number of organizations: 2011 - 28%; 2015 – 40%;
Internal costs for research and development, % of GDP: 2011 – 1.2–1.4; 2015 – 2.5–2.9;
growth in exports of science-intensive and high-tech products – 2.5 times.
It is also necessary to accelerate the construction of an effective NIS, make maximum use of existing opportunities for the integration of science, education and production, and create market incentives for increasing the innovative activity of business entities and the innovation market. All this will ultimately become the foundation for overcoming the economic crisis of 2009-2011. and the main condition for ensuring the successful economic development of the country.
The disciplines studied in many areas and specialties of the State Educational Standard of Higher Professional Education include the subjects “Economics of Innovation and Innovation Analysis”, “Economics of Innovation Activity”, and “Management of Innovative Projects”.
The relevance of studying these subjects is determined by the fact that the leading factor in the development of mankind is innovative activity, thanks to which economic growth and an improvement in the quality of life of the population are achieved.
Topic 1. Innovative path of economic development
1.1 Principles for developing innovation policy in Russia during the period of economic stabilization
Having begun socio-political and industrial-economic transformations, the country was faced with the choice of the most promising directions of state policy that would determine the new contours of society. Scientific research examines many development options, among which two stand out: the continuation of market reforms with a raw material orientation of the national economy, which is fraught with the collapse of the federal state; intensification of economic transformations based on the stabilization of the political and legislative systems, a new socio-economic strategy, as well as the integration of the country into the world economy.
At the same time, an innovative path of economic development is also possible, implying the interconnected development of scientific, technical, production, financial, social, institutional and other spheres. In this case, state protectionism of scientific and technological development, ensuring a socially oriented technological breakthrough, can become the core.
For the country as a whole, an innovation strategy is the most significant goals of technological development, determining the direction of priority financing, the creation of an intellectual and information structure for design, encouraging management to make the most of human resources, updating the legislative framework of the innovation sphere, primarily in the field of taxation, as well as restructuring of the scientific sphere with the allocation of an innovation sector engaged in the search for the most effective completed research projects that can be implemented into effective projects.
The complexity of developing such a strategy lies in the fact that the innovation sphere is inherently multidimensional (it includes elements of various levels and sections of a multi-structure economy) and is a control system in relation to technology. Since representatives of not only various specialties, but also various government bodies are involved in innovation activities, the search for successful solutions requires coordination of their efforts.
We can highlight the following principles for the formation of strategies for the development of the innovation sphere, which were used in Russia:
“Build-up” strategy - uses its own scientific, technical and production-technological potential with the involvement of foreign experience. With the rational use of the results of fundamental and applied science to increase production potential, the production of new competitive products is expanded, high technologies are developed that are used in production and the social sphere.
The “borrowing” strategy - using the innovative potential of one’s own country, the production of high-tech products produced in developed industrial countries is mastered. Next, the production of products is increased based on the development of scientific, technical and industrial potential, as a result of which it becomes possible to independently carry out work throughout the entire innovation cycle - from the creation to the sale of innovative products.
“Transfer” strategy - foreign scientific, technical, production and technological achievements are used in the country’s economy by purchasing licenses for highly efficient new technologies to master the production of new generations of products that are in demand abroad. Subsequently, the country develops its own scientific, technical and industrial potential, ensuring the reconstruction of the entire cycle - from fundamental research and development to the production and sale of competitive products in the markets of the country and abroad.
The common point for all these strategies is the intensification of innovation and the achievement of new economic frontiers. The difference in strategies is determined by the initial (financial, material and technical) capabilities of the state and the ratio of the goals achieved.
It is quite difficult to recommend the “transfer” strategy for widespread use in relation to Russian conditions due to limited resources and the unsatisfactory state of the domestic material and technical production base. In the real sector of the economy, the “borrowing” strategy can be partially used, since the scientific and technical potential of the country has not been lost.
A rational combination of the public sector with the entrepreneurial sector in some cases will make it possible to effectively use the main elements of the “borrowing” strategy, intensify innovation activity, and increase the volume of production of knowledge-intensive competitive products. The same conditions and restrictions are characteristic of the “build-up” strategy. It can be successfully applied in certain industries of the real sector of the economy and the military-industrial complex.
The strategy of the state innovation policy of Russia should be structured differently in relation to groups of industries in the real sector of the economy and to groups of industrial production, i.e. make the most of your competitive advantages. The priority of the chosen strategy of the state innovation policy should be given to highly effective, fairly quickly payback innovative projects, in the implementation of which the state can jointly participate on an equity basis with private investors, taking on part of the risks.
To develop an innovation strategy that takes into account the current state of the Russian economy, it is necessary to create:
An innovation system that accumulates and analyzes innovation experience (monitoring) in various sectors of the economy;
A permanent intersectoral working group to develop and formulate its concept.
An intersectoral intellectual center that analyzes the state of the innovation process in Russia and in industrialized countries of the world in order to develop tactics and strategies for resolving innovative situations.
A “think tank” constantly operating in the innovation sphere will help speed up the search for the principle of structuring science, strengthen innovative activity at the interface of “science-production” in new economic conditions, which will not only introduce scientific accents into the scientific environment, but also create new sources (including and extra-budgetary) to finance scientific research.
Decentralization of the investment process, corresponding to economic transformations (privatization of the public sector, development of private capital, the emergence of venture capital firms of various forms of ownership) will lead to a variety of forms of financing innovative projects; in this regard, it becomes important not only to develop a clear strategy for structural restructuring, its focus on efficient production, but and the ability to use the entire arsenal of tools for direct and indirect regulation of the influx of private and public capital to finance innovation activities.
1.2 Concept of the state innovation policy of the Russian Federation
The initial prerequisites for developing the concept are as follows: innovative activity in Russia is characterized by significant scientific and technical potential and a low resulting indicator (having 10% of the total number of scientists in the world, Russia produces less than 1% of high-tech products on the world market); only about 10% of industrial enterprises develop and master innovations (for comparison, in the USA, about 30%); per one ruble of costs, innovatively active enterprises provide output volumes 7 times greater than when producing using traditional technologies.
Analysis of the level of innovation activity shows that only five industries have values of this indicator that exceed the industry average: medical industry (17.8%), chemical and petroleum (17.3%), ferrous metallurgy (10.5%), mechanical engineering and metalworking (7.9%), fuel industry (5.3%). In most industries, the values of this indicator are low. In the microbiological industry, innovative activity corresponds to the industry average (5.0%). Its lowest level is in the forestry, woodworking and pulp and paper industries, the building materials industry (2% each), as well as in the electronics, light, glass, and porcelain and earthenware industries (2.1% each).
The structure of innovation costs is specific. The largest share in the costs of Russian enterprises for innovation was the purchase of machinery and equipment (48.1%), at the same time, only 2.4% of all funds spent on innovation were spent on the acquisition of new technologies; for the acquisition of rights to patents, licenses, industrial designs and utility models - 0.5%.
In the total costs of enterprises for innovations, own funds account for 74%. The share of foreign investment does not exceed 10%, the federal budget and budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation - 4.4%; extra-budgetary funds - 3.4%; other costs (private investment, borrowed funds, etc.) -8.2%.
A general indicator of the results of innovation activity is the share of innovative products in its total volume. Note that in 2001 this figure decreased and amounted to 2.3% (in 2000 - 3.5%).
The lack of innovation performance is illustrated by the export indicator. Currently, Russia's share in the total volume of trade in high-tech civilian products remains low, estimated at 0.3-0.5% (for comparison, China's share is 6%).
The situation is dramatic in those areas where, for various reasons, Russian developments lag significantly behind the world level. First of all, this applies to information and telecommunication technologies, certain areas of mechanical engineering and biotechnology. The opening of the Russian market to foreign goods led to a drop in demand for domestic high-tech products, pushing them out of the domestic market.
Under these conditions, enterprises are reducing the volume of production of high-tech products, giving priority to technically simpler and cheaper ones. The production volumes of products of the fifth technological level, the core of which are the electronics industry, computing, fiber optic equipment, software, telecommunications, and robotics, are declining.
However, Russia still retains a number of economic sectors that are globally competitive. These are the fuel and raw materials complex, ferrous and non-ferrous metallurgy, chemical, woodworking, aviation and aerospace industries, instrument making, shipbuilding, and certain branches of the military-industrial complex. Russia is among the world leaders in the development of a number of fundamental problems in the field of physics, mathematics, chemistry, physics, medicine, in the applied development of laser technology, new materials, aerospace technology, individual samples of military equipment, communications and telecommunications, and computer software products.
The country has retained significant scientific and technological potential, which, together with high-tech production in the defense and civil industries, makes it possible to form and implement a national technological strategy during industrial restructuring
In order to ensure state regulation of innovation processes in 1998. The Concept of Innovation Policy of the Russian Federation for 2000 - 2005 and the action plan for its implementation were approved. The plan covered issues of legislative and regulatory support for innovation activities, measures to increase its activity and develop its infrastructure, and the development of economic and financial mechanisms that would facilitate this.
In accordance with the Concept and its implementation plan, a draft federal law “On Innovation Activities and State Innovation Policy” was developed, which provided for legal norms aimed at stimulating innovation activities and the development of knowledge-intensive industries. In particular, forms of state support were identified, including financing innovation, placing a state order for the purchase of products created as a result of innovative activity, and providing benefits to its subjects.
To coordinate the activities of federal executive authorities and implement state scientific, technical and innovation policies, a government Commission on Scientific and Innovation Policy was formed. In order to create conditions for increasing the competitiveness of Russian industry based on knowledge-intensive products and the use of high technologies in the real sector of the economy, the Government of the Russian Federation adopted a decree “On the formation of federal centers of science and high technology”. In 1999, the Government of the Russian Federation decided to create an institution of higher professional education – Russian State University of Innovative Technologies and Entrepreneurship.
The Government Commission on Scientific and Innovation Policy approved the main directions of extra-budgetary financing of high-risk projects (venture investment systems" in the scientific and technical sphere for 2000-2005 and decided to establish a Venture Innovation Fund. At the same time, issues of strengthening the innovative potential of at the regional level. It is necessary to develop a clear mechanism for interaction between government bodies at the federal level and at the level of constituent entities of the Russian Federation to coordinate national and regional interests in the field of innovative development.
At the same time, issues of strengthening innovative potential at the regional level remained unresolved. It is necessary to develop a clear mechanism for interaction between government bodies at the federal level and at the level of constituent entities of the Russian Federation in order to harmonize national and regional interests in the field of innovative development.
A legal framework is needed to improve the efficiency of management of federally owned objects and state stakes, ensuring compliance with state interests in innovative development, expanding the state’s capabilities to manage state-owned enterprises.
1.3 Goals and methods of forming state innovation policy for the period until 2010
The main goals of the state innovation policy until 2010 are to increase the technological level and competitiveness of production, ensure the entry of innovative products into the domestic and foreign markets, replace imported products on the domestic market and, on this basis, transfer industrial production to the stage of sustainable economic growth.
To achieve the set goals, it is necessary to solve the main tasks of innovation policy:
Selection of rational strategies and priorities for the development of the innovation sphere when implementing critical technologies and innovative projects in industries that have a decisive impact on increasing production efficiency and product competitiveness;
Coordination of the actions of federal executive authorities, authorities of constituent entities of the Russian Federation and municipalities in order to develop an integrated approach to the problems of innovative development, the effective functioning of the innovation system and the implementation of state innovation policy;
Concentration of organizational measures and resources on priority areas of development of the innovation sphere and ensuring the unity of state scientific, technical and innovation policies in order to increase the demand of industrial production for scientific and technical achievements, attracting free capital to finance projects for technological re-equipment of industry;
Preservation and development of production and technological potential, its use to maintain the modern technological level and transition to higher technologies;
Creation of a system of training and retraining of personnel in the field of innovative entrepreneurship;
Support for leading scientists, research teams, pedagogical schools capable of providing a high level of education for effective innovation;
Creation in Russia of a developed system of international certification, based on international and national standards of Russia;
The use in the real sector of the economy of innovative technologies and production facilities that ensure the production of competitive products and automation of the management of complex technological processes.
To solve the main problems of innovative development, the following advantages of the Russian economy should be used:
Natural resources, developed mineral resource base;
Technological potential of defense and related civilian industries;
Reserve production capacity for the production of mass, relatively cheap products that can be sold in the domestic market, as well as in the markets of a number of developing countries;
Scientific and technical potential, a large number of patents, know-how, highly qualified scientific personnel;
World-class higher education system.
1.4 Features of the development of innovative programs and projects
The implementation of various kinds of federal target programs and innovation projects is focused on the implementation of the main directions of structural restructuring, the implementation of Russia's innovation policy, and in particular:
Solving problems of great social significance, including the need to improve economic and environmental security;
Support for efficient and competitive production with the consistent phasing out of unpromising and outdated production (economic restructuring);
Promoting the development of the infrastructure of the Russian economy necessary for the implementation of structural transformations;
Ensuring the efficient and economical use of all types of resources, preserving valuable elements of the accumulated scientific and technical potential;
Accelerating the adaptation of enterprises and scientific organizations to market conditions;
The implementation of innovation programs is carried out, as a rule, in two stages. The first stage is the creation of economic and financial prerequisites for investing in the entire complex of research, development and subsequent work on the creation of software products, including the implementation of a system of subsequent program activities. The additional resources attracted, in addition to budgetary allocations, focus on financing and supporting not only research and development work, but also the creation of quick-payback projects (“growth points”), the priority of which is determined by the inclusion in the system of program activities of effective and reliable “related " production
The second stage is the active implementation of a system of program activities (creation and fine-tuning of software products). The main emphasis of government support at this stage shifts to the implementation of scientific and technical potential. It is taken into account that when entering a foreign market, intense competition is inevitable, therefore the influence of possible foreign investments in the implementation of certain program activities will be subject to political conditions that reflect the interests of foreign competitors.
As a rule, annual investments from the state budget for the implementation of the federal target program (FTP) approved by the Government of the Russian Federation are not fully allocated. It is obvious that the requested (calculated) investments must be confirmed by convincing technical and economic calculations, which, in turn, must be supported by calculations of their payback and the possible receipt of a significant socio-economic effect from the implementation of the target program.
In this section of the target program, the results of the development of the so-called main business plan (its summary) are usually placed, accompanied by appropriate comments. The performance indicators that should be noted when developing and submitting the main business plan to the federal budget include:
Technical, economic and socio-economic effectiveness of the program as a whole, subprograms and individual groups of the system of activities (desirable);
Calculations confirming the prevention of negative economic consequences from the implementation of the program;
The amount of economic damage prevented due to the timely implementation of this Federal Target Program, including due to the discontinuation of non-competitive products;
The amount of all types of income (profit, foreign exchange earnings, etc.) during the implementation of the federal target program.
Federal target programs can be divided into three groups.
The first group is aimed at creating a reliable strategic base of applied research, experimental development, experimental models, as well as a reserve array of the latest technologies.
The second group is associated with ensuring the implementation of scientific developments of a new generation, the transition to an innovative type of reproduction, overcoming negative trends in the development of innovation activities, updating production potential and achieving, on this basis, higher rates of economic growth necessary to solve current economic problems.
The third group includes federal targeted programs that use traditional technologies that have proven themselves in terms of reliability and ensure production efficiency.
Federal target programs for 2010 and subsequent years are being formed to solve major scientific, technical, industrial, economic and social problems identified during the development of long- and medium-term government forecasts for the socio-economic development of the Russian Federation. This makes it possible to closely link federal target programs with solving key problems of the country's development.
Federal targeted innovation programs that ensure the transition of the economy to a higher technological mode of production should be formed as part of the federal target program for their financing from budgetary and extra-budgetary sources. The basis for these programs should be the priorities of state innovation policy.
Taking into account the fact that in the scientific, technical and innovation spheres there is a sufficient number of developments that are ready for development in production, the program method of bringing the economy onto an innovative path of development should be combined with the implementation of individual innovative projects of a high degree of commercialization. Such projects can have the greatest effect in non-capital-intensive sectors of the economy with rapid capital turnover, high budgetary efficiency and rapid product turnover. The focus of innovative revival will be, first of all, the production of the consumer sector of the economy: food, light and medical industries, forestry, production of household appliances.
Budgetary funds for the completion of “background” research and development work for their implementation in production should be allocated taking into account:
Competitive evaluation of business plans for quickly implemented innovative projects;
Confirmation by a specific enterprise (product manufacturer) of sufficient amounts of invested own funds;
Prices and volumes of products (in connection with reasonable market needs determined as a result of marketing research);
At the same time, control over tax revenues from the sale of innovative products developed under these projects must be ensured.
Questions for the exam on the topic
Principles of forming strategies for the development of the innovation sphere.
Initial prerequisites for developing the concept of state innovation policy.
The concept of state innovation policy.
Main goals of state innovation policy.
Advantages of the Russian economy used to solve problems of innovative development.
The main tasks of innovation policy.
Direction of the Federal Target Program. Stages of implementation of innovative programs.
Federal target programs.
Mechanisms and methods of regulation in the context of the transition to innovative development Author unknown
1.1. Transition to an innovative path of development and the state
The transition to innovative development for Russia has become the most pressing challenge of the time. Quite large-scale practical steps are being taken in this area, but their economic and theoretical justification needs, in our opinion, further development. In this regard, we will consider the process of transition to an innovative economy from a theoretical perspective and try to assess the role of the state in this process.
1.1.1 Simple case: innovative development at the industrial stage
The simplicity of the case under consideration is as follows. First, let's move to the industrial stage of development, say, in the first half of the twentieth century, where there are no signs or talk about a post-industrial society. Secondly, let's take an integral national economy without any influence of globalization. Thirdly, let us assume that the elite of a given country recognizes the transition to innovative development as a task and is ready to act to solve it.
Even such a relatively simple situation requires solving at least three theoretical problems. The first problem is to answer the question: what is development of an innovative and non-innovative type? By what criteria should we determine that one national economy is developing innovatively, and another - non-innovatively?
There are indicators of science intensity or the share of spending on science and education in the country’s budget. But, firstly, these are just indicators, and not a reproduction model, and, secondly, even at the level of individual superficial indicators, it is not clear what their value should be so that we can confidently say that the transition to an innovative path of development has taken place.
For example, the authors of the monograph “The Path to the 21st Century. Strategic problems and prospects for the Russian economy” write that “7 highly developed countries own 46 out of 50 macrotechnologies that ensure competitive production, and the rest of the world owns 3–4 macrotechnologies.” At the same time, “out of 46 macro-technologies possessed by 7 highly developed countries, the USA accounts for 20-22, ..., Germany - 8-10, Japan - 7, England and France - 3-5, Sweden, Norway, Italy, Switzerland - 1-2 each." Based on these data, can we consider that Italy, like the United States, is developing innovatively? The USA spends $385.5 billion a year on research and development, Russia – $25.5 billion.
By what amount should we increase these expenses in order to be considered an innovatively developing country?
The second problem is this. If a given economy moves to an innovative path of development and it is a market economy, will the role of the state strengthen in this economy? Of course, we are talking about strengthening the role of the state, all other things being equal.
It seems that today most economists would agree that in a market national economy of an industrial type, the intensification of the flow of innovation strengthens the role of government regulation. This is due to the simple fact that a lot of time passes from the idea to the commercial implementation of an innovative project, during which there are only costs and no results. The longer this lag and the higher the costs, the less willing a private owner is to invest money.
However, even if the fundamental connection between innovation and the state is recognized, the question remains open about the degree of influence of innovation on strengthening the role of the state in the economy. If we assume that the main purpose of state participation in the innovation process is to provide resources for non-profitable projects and control their implementation, then part of the national resources should move from the bourgeoisie to the bureaucracy. The status of the bourgeoisie will decrease, and the bureaucracy will increase. In the case where innovations have little effect on strengthening the role of the state, the transfer of resources and statuses will not be noticeable and painful. However, if the connection between innovation and government regulation is significant, then the situation will be different. It is unlikely that there will be people who are ready to voluntarily give up a considerable part of their property and thereby lower their social status. Then it turns out that the bourgeoisie is an opponent of the transition to an innovative type of development and the question arises about the possibilities and methods of suppressing it on the part of the bureaucracy.
Let us assume that we have established the idea that the transition to an innovative type of development requires a significant strengthening of the role of the state in the economy. Then the third theoretical problem arises: what is the state as an economic entity and what is state regulation of the economy?
Perhaps there will be people who claim that the theory of state regulation of the economy was developed by modern Western economic science and there is no problem. However, I am not inclined to agree with scientists of this kind.
Firstly, it is unclear how such concepts as “state regulation” and “plan” relate. We proceed from the fact that a plan is a much more general and fundamental concept than state regulation. The concept of “plan” covers all forms of non-market interaction between economic entities.
These are, first of all, planned economies as such, from the Inca Empire to North Korea. And these are all ways of non-market interaction within and between market-type economies. If we take this second case (non-market within a market), then this is: a) the internal economy of enterprises; b) economic behavior of regional authorities; c) government regulation itself and d) non-market transactions at the level of the world economy.
As we see, government regulation of the market is a very special case of planning. However, this is the form of existence of the plan. In this sense, both financial and monetary policies are forms of planning. It follows that the plan is an independent economic reality, opposite to the market. Accordingly, state regulation of the market is not just an excrescence on the body of a market economy, but is something independent and opposite to the market.
If state regulation of a market economy is one of the forms of plan, then a single planning mechanism must be identified that combines the logic of the behavior of the authorities during the period of Stalinism and the logic of the authorities acting in accordance with the monetary rule. At its core, it is the same logic.
In our opinion, modern economic theory has not revealed this logic. What are the reasons that there is no satisfactory theory of plan? The main reason is that, as noted above, Western theorists do not consider the plan (state activity) as an independent economic reality, opposed to the market. This reveals itself in several ways.
1. To study the plan, the principle of so-called “methodological individualism” is applied, when the motivation and behavior of politicians, dictators and bureaucrats is assessed in the same way as the behavior of a private owner in the market, and society is just the sum of individuals. However, this, of course, is not so, and there is an opposite principle of holism, which is more adequate for the study of the plan.
2. When modern economic theory studies the behavior of the state, it studies the behavior of the state in a market economy. That is, developed capitalism is taken and the plan within capital is considered. However, the plan within capital cannot fully reveal its properties and laws. Studying the plan within capital is the same as judging capitalism by studying self-supporting relations in the economy of the Soviet Union. To truly reveal the laws of the plan, it is necessary to study the economic systems where the plan received its maximum development. Only after this the plan within the capital becomes clear.
3. Guided by methodological individualism and considering developed capitalism, modern economic thought interprets the economic activity of the state in several directions.
Firstly, predominantly in macroeconomics the state is understood as a certain entity influencing supply and demand already formed by the market. It is clear that the plan's alternative mechanism to the market is not disclosed here. Government spending and taxes simply shift the supply and demand functions. At the same time, the influence of the state is often presented as something exogenous in relation to the economy.
Secondly, the activities of the state are considered within the framework of the economics of the public sector. In this direction, economists, in our opinion, have obtained more serious results. In particular, an attempt is made here to substantiate the process of value formation in the public sector on the basis of social indifference curves, the concepts of normative interest and social utility appear, and the features of the economic behavior of the bureaucracy are revealed.
However, despite the existing successes, the main question remains unresolved. If we take a market economy, then its simplest economic basis will be a trade transaction carried out between private owners. This trade deal is described in both Marxism and marginalism and partly in institutionalism. The question arises, what is the simplest basis for a planned economy (or a plan within the market)? Trade deal? Of course not. This is some kind of alternative economic mechanism that is unknown to modern Western science. The simplest elements of a trade transaction are the product itself and its price. It is to price signals that market participants must respond. The alternative scheduling mechanism must have parameters similar to the product and price. Similar, but different.
We offer nomenclature and volume as such alternative parameters. The product nomenclature is replaced by the plan nomenclature, and the price is replaced by volume. The process of creating the value of any product occurs in price and volume forms. Depending on what form the product takes, the form of capital or a plan, either the price or volume type of value is updated in it. In a planned economy, instead of commodity-money exchange between private owners, we get the disaggregation of volume into nomenclature and the aggregation of nomenclature into volume, carried out within the bureaucracy class. This is the movement of the plan.
As a result, if we recognize that in an industrial market economy, in the situation of its transition to an innovative path of development, strengthening of state regulation is required, then this means strengthening the action of the nomenclature-volume mechanism.
The general ideological mood today is that the economic activities of the state are considered less effective than the activities of private individuals. Impressive figures are provided as proof: “The Soviet Union produced 8 times more iron ore than the United States, smelting three times as much cast iron from this ore, and twice as much steel from this cast iron. It produced cars from this metal at a cost about the same as the United States. In the USSR, the consumption of raw materials and energy per unit of final product was 1.6 and 2.1 higher, respectively, than in the USA. The average construction period for an industrial enterprise in the USSR exceeded 10 years, in the USA - less than 2 years. In 1980, per unit of final product, the USSR consumed 1.8 times more steel than the United States, 2.3 times more cement, 7.6 times more mineral fertilizers, and 1.5 times more forest products.”
However, even if we accept these “killer” statistics without critical evaluation, the problem of the comparative effectiveness of capital and plan remains. The functioning of economic systems is associated with two effects: the stimulation effect and the regulation effect. These effects can be both positive and negative. The functioning of the market system is accompanied by a positive stimulation effect and a negative regulation effect. The planned system generates the opposite combination.
One of the manifestations of the regulation effect is the mobilization effect. We are interested in this particular effect, since it reflects the fact of redistribution of resources to the innovation sector of the economy. The comparative effectiveness of the market and the plan in the event of a need to transition to an innovative type of development is determined by a combination of stimulation and mobilization effects. If, during the transition from plan to market, the positive effect of stimulation is less than the negative effect of mobilization, and during the reverse transition from market to plan, the negative effect of stimulation is less than the positive effect of mobilization, then the planned economy turns out to be more effective. And, accordingly, vice versa.
1.1.2. The first complicating circumstance: post-industrial transition
We examined a simple case of a national economy in the conditions of the industrial stage, moving to an innovative path of development. Now let us take into account a number of circumstances complicating this simple case and the problems arising in this connection.
The first complicating circumstance is the transition from the industrial to the post-industrial stage of development. Here a well-known problem immediately arises: what is the content of this stage. There are definitions of information, new, service economy, knowledge-based economy, etc. There is a position that there is no transition to a post-industrial economy, but there is a new stage of industrialization. If we take the point of view of the majority and admit that the post-industrial economy, no matter how you define it, is a reality, then another problem arises.
The transition to a post-industrial society gave rise to such a phenomenon as globalization. The problem arising in connection with the post-industrial transition and globalization is to answer the question: does Russia have the right to an innovative path of development? This question is appropriate given the following circumstance. It is possible that one of the fundamental reasons for the transition to a global world order is that, on the one hand, the resource base of the planet is depleting, and on the other, the innovation process requires ever greater resource sacrifices. Under these conditions, the existence of several national development centers on Earth is impossible. Indirect evidence in favor of this assumption is the death of one of the two superpowers in the 20th century. Apparently, someone had to step up anyway to provide limited resources for the benefit of world progress. If this is so, then the launch of a parallel innovation process on the territory of Russia poses a threat to all humanity, because we (the people of the Earth) risk wasting resources, not solving the environmental problem and dying. In other words, the question is again on the agenda: is a multipolar world possible today or should it be unipolar?
The next theoretical and practical problem requiring discussion is the following. If the nature of economic life changes radically, what changes do the market and the plan undergo? The market and planning mechanisms of an agrarian society are radically different from those in an industrial society. Consequently, post-industrial market and planned relations are just as different from industrial ones. Most likely, capitalism, which has won today on a world-historical scale, is fading into historical oblivion. Naturally, we are primarily interested in whether, at the post-industrial stage, the fundamental connection remains between the country’s transition to an innovative development path and the strengthening of the plan to the detriment of the market.
Globalization leads to the decline of nation states, which means government regulation. This means that the state’s ability to influence the innovation process is weakening. In this regard, the problem of the unprofitability of the innovative development path for Russia deserves attention. This formulation of the question may seem strange. However, let's take a closer look at the situation. Innovations do not pay off immediately. Initially, they require gratuitous investments. Suppose Russia, strengthening the planning mechanism, mobilizes significant resources for scientific and technological development. When these costs are translated into a specific result, it will be appropriated by global network structures and used for their benefit. The peculiarity of the network organization of the economy is that there is no need to remove research centers and specialists. It is enough to include them in the global network, and they will be, as it were, “cut out” from the national economy as long as they produce results. Then they are disconnected from the network and they again feed on the resources of the nation state. As a result, Russia may find itself in a situation where, at the expense of its standard of living, it will pay for progress, but not implement it or use it. Here, in a gradual form, what happened simultaneously as a result of the democratization of Russia, when the West gained access to many technologies created in the Soviet Union, can be fulfilled.
Related to this problem is the problem of petrodollars. Russia, like other oil exporters, sells it at a high price. These petrodollars can, using the nomenclature-volume mechanism, be pumped into the innovation sector, infringing on current consumption. However, let’s say we decide not to take the innovative path and spend petrodollars on consumption. The question arises: “Is the hat suitable for Senka?” Perhaps inflated oil prices are depriving the world's development centers of the necessary resources for fundamental technological breakthroughs. Then the world's oil and gas exporters become enemies of world progress.
So, the first complication of the simple case of the transition of an industrial national economy to an innovative path of development is associated with the beginning of the post-industrial stage.
1.1.3. The second complicating circumstance: the peculiarities of Russia
The second complication is due to the fact that we are moving to an innovative path of development not in general, but in Russia. Accordingly, this transition will be influenced by all the features of the Russian economy. And here again the problem of the presence or absence of a special path for Russia comes up.
The specificity of Russia consists of a) harsh natural and climatic conditions; b) large territory and high transport costs; c) a certain historically accumulated material and technical base, more backward than in developed countries; d) a drugged, demotivated, desocialized and declining population.
These four circumstances increase costs and reduce the results of economic activity in Russia. If we proceed from the fact that the implementation of large innovation projects requires a planned mobilization of resources, then, taking into account the aforesaid specifics of Russia, we obtain the following.
Firstly, due to a less favorable cost-benefit ratio than in the average industrial country, our resource base for ensuring innovation is lower.
Secondly, due to the same unfavorable cost-benefit ratio, the need for resources to provide comparable innovations is higher.
Also, the combination of a meager resource base and an increased need for resources to ensure innovation means only one thing - a higher role of the plan compared to the market than in the conventional, average country. But if the role of the plan in our country again increases significantly, this will cause an economic conflict with the West. In addition, the question arises: do we even have enough resources for innovative development? During the period of industrialization, we needed a colossal effort from everyone for this transition. Maybe at the post-industrial stage the price of transition is so high that we, with our Russian cost-benefit ratio, cannot pay it at all?
The authors of the already mentioned monograph “The Path to the 21st Century...” argue that Russia for the period until 2028 could set a priority development task for 12–16 macrotechnologies. But at the same time, they also provide data that the United States has 20–22 macrotechnologies, and Japan has only 7. This suggests that only a very rich country can develop macrotechnology. Only a rich country can, using its resources and exploiting the periphery, invest in macrotechnology for a long time without receiving a return.
Thus, the second complicating circumstance of the transition to innovative development is considered - the peculiarities of Russia.
1.1.4. Third complicating factor: Russia’s peripheral position
Let us consider the third complicating circumstance – the peripheral position of our country in the global division of labor. With the exception of the Soviet period, we have always been a second-tier country. And now, after almost twenty years of market development, we have again acquired the status of a second or even third tier country. What follows from this situation of ours?
Firstly, it is unclear what the nature of the post-industrial transition is for a peripheral country. Let's say a certain peripheral country supplies the world's development centers with bananas or oil. At first it supplied these centers as centers of industrial development; now it supplies them as centers of post-industrial development. Does this mean that this country - a supplier of bananas or oil - has become post-industrial? Does this mean anything for its transition to an innovative development path?
Secondly, periphery countries supply resources to world development centers on the basis of unequal exchange. Consequently, our transition to an innovative type of development is further burdened by the fact that from the resources that Russia has and which can be mobilized for scientific and technological development, it is necessary to subtract the “tribute” paid by Russia in favor of the West. And this, in turn, further aggravates the dilemma - either the market, but without innovation, or innovation, but without the market.
One may get the impression that this point contradicts the question posed above: does Russia, along with other resource suppliers, have the right to draw from world centers the resources they need for development due to high oil prices? In fact, there is no contradiction here, since this is not a statement, but a question. And besides, the situation is determined by the goal that the country sets for itself. One goal is to maximize consumption at the expense of innovation; another goal is the transition to an innovative path of development and the entire burden of responsibility arising from such a goal.
Thirdly, Russia’s new peripheral position again brings us back to the question of the criteria for innovative and non-innovative types of development. The fact is that the level and nature of innovative development are set by the countries of the center. They act as a standard to which the periphery is forced to equal. That is, we do not decide what innovative development is and how long it will take us to move towards it. We just fit into the trajectory given from the outside. But the more backward a country is, the greater the amount of resources per unit of time it is forced to mobilize to achieve this standard set by the center.
And here again the need for a sharp strengthening of the plan looms for us.
1.1.5. Fourth complicating factor: global crisis
When the crisis arrived, opponents of the market rejoiced and immediately declared that this was not just a cyclical crisis of overproduction, but a systemic crisis of all capitalism. Lovers of capitalism shrugged their shoulders and said that the crisis was normal and good; It's like a cleansing shower for a healthy market body.
At the moment, it seems that supporters of the systemic crisis of capitalism were hasty in their assessments. It was already noted above that at the post-industrial stage capitalism will disappear. His death must be accompanied by systemic crisis processes. However, this does not appear to apply to the 2008–2009 crisis. But even if we admit that this is not a systemic, but a cyclical crisis of overproduction, the following questions still remain relevant.
Firstly, is there an adequate model of the business cycle in economic science today?
Secondly, if we recognize that the world is moving to a post-industrial stage of development, then even the ordinary capitalist cycle can no longer be ordinary. There must be some kind of post-industrial modification in its mechanism. For example, A.A. Porokhovsky notes the special influence of ICT on the modern crisis. A.V. Buzgalin considers the modern crisis to be the result of the activities of TNCs that have gone beyond the control of individual national states. V.T. Ryazanov believes that globalization “leads to the creation of international networks operating under private control and spread over several continents. The increased complexity of the system requires greater control accuracy. Meanwhile, although it is based on the system of international institutions and relationships that have developed in recent decades, they are still based on the same market principles.” In any case, even if there is a cycle model adequate to the industrial stage, it requires development in the conditions of the post-industrial transition.
From the book Economic Theories and Goals of Society author Galbraith John KennethChapter I Functions of the Economic System and Economic Theory Chapter II Neoclassical Model Chapter III Neoclassical Model II: State Chapter IV Consumption and the Household Concept Chapter V General Theory of High Level Development Part II. Market
From the book ABC of Economics author Gwartney James DPart III Economic progress and the role of the state The state, which protects law and order and provides benefits that society cannot obtain “on the market,” contributes to the well-being of the entire country, BUT... The state is not a plug for every barrel. It can't be
From the book Crisis Management author Babushkina Elena44. Innovative potential of enterprises, its role in anti-crisis management The process of formation of an innovation system is influenced by the level of innovative potential of the enterprise, i.e. its ability to achieve its goals. The implementation of these goals acts as
From the book Banks and Money [SI] author Simonov Nikolay SergeevichCHAPTER 11 Welcome to state capitalism! - Transition to a new model of economic development, expansion of state banks, creation of state corporations At the beginning of December 1998, 1 barrel of Brent oil cost only $9.55. Over the next 10 years, prices for this
From the book Russia's Innovation Path by Danilin PavelPavel Danilin, Natalya Kryshtal Innovation path
From the book Innovative Management: A Study Guide author Mukhamedyarov A. M.Chapter 1 Innovation and the innovation process 1.1. Innovation as a source of satisfying social needs Scientific and technological progress, especially its modern stage - the scientific and technological revolution, contributes to the development of mass production of many types
From the book PEOPLE, PEOPLE, NATION... author Gorodnikov Sergey1.4. Innovation process as an object of management The characteristics of the innovation process as an object of management include three aspects: 1) disclosure of the content of the innovation cycle; 2) a clear understanding of innovations in terms of their substantive (material) content; 3)
From the book Mechanisms and methods of regulation in the conditions of transition to innovative development author Author unknown4. The state of the tribal nobility and the social state The confrontation between the ruling class of the tribal nobility and the tribal public power, which still retained great influence, turned out to be the main internal reason for the development of the original state power
From the book Your Neighbor is a Millionaire by Danko William D.4.5. Cluster policy as an innovative tool for the development of entrepreneurship The fundamental mechanism for the integrated development of entrepreneurship is the formation of a system of plans that corresponds to the set objectives. The totality of such plans and
From the book Innovation Management author Makhovikova Galina AfanasyevnaTaxes, government... government again Many high-income Americans, both the NSA and the NSA, are concerned about the actions of the federal government. A private individual is powerless before this force beyond his control. Dr. South indicated that he feared government action in four
From the book New Russian Doctrine: It's Time to Spread Your Wings author Bagdasarov Roman VladimirovichGalina Afanasyevna Makhovikova, Nadezhda Filippovna Efimova Innovative
From the book Strategies for the development of scientific and production enterprises of the aerospace complex. Innovation path author Baranov Vyacheslav Viktorovich8.1. Innovative potential of an enterprise The readiness and ability of a particular innovative enterprise to implement for the first time and reproduce an innovation characterizes its innovative potential. Innovation potential (state, industry, enterprise) –
From the book Risk Management, Audit and Internal Control author Filatov Alexander AlexandrovichFor Russia, as for any country in the world, there is no other path of development other than further integration into the world economic system. The processes of globalization are objective; they are determined by the course of development of our civilization. But for the Russian economy, the most important role is the role it will play in the international system of economic relations: a raw materials appendage or a high-tech country with an innovation-oriented economy.
Meanwhile, marking time in carrying out market reforms gives rise to psychological fatigue among the population, distrust in the most effective economic system - the market based on dynamically developing competition through private entrepreneurship (the share of small businesses in GDP should reach 70%), expansion of the range, quantity and quality of goods and services while increasing the income of the main part of the working population.
In order for the state’s economy to switch to an innovative path of development, it is necessary to identify a goal and develop a real mechanism for achieving it:
1) develop and implement schemes to radically increase the income of the population in order to create consumer demand that is normal for the functioning of market relations. It is the demand generated by the bulk of the Russian population that will not only solve the most acute housing problem, but will also serve as the driving force for the transition to an innovative path of development;
2) intensify state regulation in the construction industry with the help of market instruments: preferential taxation of enterprises;
development of competition, including through the organization of unitary enterprises (especially in sectors of the construction complex with a high degree of monopolization) with their subsequent corporatization; reducing, if necessary, import duties on materials and products; timely development of master plans for urban development and allocation of development sites at a faster pace than demand; organizing construction and savings banks; creating alternative income instruments for preserving financial capital (issuing government securities, etc.); promoting the transition of the construction industry to an innovative path of development;
3) provide government funding for the creation of socio-cultural and transport network infrastructure during the construction of houses in new areas, in particular the construction of schools, kindergartens, clinics, sports facilities, road construction, water, gas and energy supplies, which is of particular importance in economic conditions crisis, as it allows you to significantly influence the level of unemployment in the country;
4) take into account that the basic factors for the transition to an innovative development path are:
a radical improvement in the system of grants for scientific research (they should be more than attractive in their amounts, as well as accessible - right down to the application form for scientists to receive them);
promoting the formation of innovative small business companies; for which it is necessary to exempt firms (or individuals) engaged in the development of innovative technologies from taxation and the need to submit tax reports for 5 years (leave only the annual declaration of individuals with the corresponding payment of income tax. The very process of establishing a new company, if its name the name of the scientist himself is included; as a last resort, it is enough to provide registration with the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation on the appropriate website;
cessation of state support for inefficient production (supply of cheap energy resources, protectionism in competition with Western goods, etc.);
providing enterprises with a real opportunity to accelerate the depreciation of their fixed assets with the corresponding formation of depreciation funds;
reduction of the taxable income tax base in the amount of the enterprise’s costs for innovation;
implementation of innovations in various sectors of the economy in a powerful flow that can influence market conditions;
5) accelerate the process of integration of the Russian economy into the system of international economic relations through a set of measures: accession to the WTO, introduction of international institutional standards, etc.
4. Innovative path of development of Russia
For the first time, the innovative path of development of Russia was declared by the Government of the Russian Federation in 2002 in the document “Fundamentals of the policy of the Russian Federation in the field of development of science and technology until 2010 and further prospects,” approved by decree of the President of the Russian Federation of March 30, 2002. This document states that the goal of state policy in the field of development of science and technology is the transition to an innovative path of development of the country based on selected priorities19. Having solved in recent years the tasks of creating an institutional basis for a market economy and post-crisis restoration of production, ensuring macroeconomic stability, Russia, on the one hand, has the opportunity to set ambitious strategic development goals, and on the other, it is faced with the need to overcome the identified challenges.
4.1 Innovative path of development: concept, objectives and main characteristics
The innovative path of the country's development is a path based on the knowledge and scientific achievements, thanks to which Russia must change its raw material orientation in global trade by 2020, as indicated in the “Concept of long-term socio-economic development of the Russian Federation.” Russia must enter the top five leaders in global economic development and trade primarily in science-intensive high-tech products on the global commodity market.
Achieving this goal involves:
Russia’s achievement of welfare standards corresponding to developed countries of the world (including average per capita GDP at purchasing power parity – 30 thousand US dollars in 2020 and 40-50 thousand US dollars in 2030);
ensuring Russia's scientific and technological leadership in areas that ensure its competitive advantages and national security;
ensuring Russia's specialization in the world economy on the basis of advanced research developments and high technologies. Russia must occupy a significant, at least 10 percent, place in the markets of high-tech goods and services in 4-6 or more positions;
strengthening Russia's position in the formation of global energy infrastructure;
implementation of global competitive advantages in the field of transport and transit flows;
turning Russia into one of the world's leading financial centers, possessing an independent national financial infrastructure and ensuring Russia's leading position in the financial markets of the CIS countries, EurAsEC, Central and Eastern Europe;
formation of effective democratic institutions, influential and active institutions of civil society20.
The innovative type of development has a number of qualitative and quantitative characteristics that correspond to the development parameters of the leading countries of the world:
diversification of the economy, in the structure of which the leading role is transferred to “knowledge industries” and high-tech industries. The share of the high-tech sector and knowledge economy in GDP should be at least 17-20% (2006 – 10.5%), the contribution of innovative factors to annual GDP growth should be at least 2.0-3 percentage points (2006 – 1.3 );
high innovative activity of corporations associated with the development of new markets, updating the product range, mastering new technologies, and creating new forms of business organization. The share of industrial enterprises carrying out technological innovations should increase to 40-50% (2005 - 9.3%), the share of innovative products in industrial output - up to 25-35% (2005 - 2.5 percent);
the presence of an effective national innovation system, intensification of research and development, both fundamental and applied. Domestic research and development costs should rise to 3.5-4% of GDP (2006 - 1% of GDP);
creating conditions for the effective use of skilled labor and improving the quality of human capital, the presence of an effective, result-oriented social infrastructure. The average monthly salary in the economy should exceed 2000 US dollars in 2020 (2006 - 391 US dollars), expenditures on education from public and private sources - at least 5-6% of GDP (2006 - 4.6%), healthcare - 6-6.5% (2006 - 3.9 percent);
increasing the efficiency of using primary resources, primarily labor and energy. Labor productivity should be almost doubled, energy intensity should be reduced by no less than 40 percent; an effective system for the specification and protection of property rights, including intellectual property, and the creation of a developed venture capital market21.
The peculiarity of the transition to an innovative type of development is that Russia will have to simultaneously solve the problems of both catching up and advanced development. In conditions of global competition and an open economy, it is impossible to catch up with the developed countries of the world in terms of prosperity and efficiency without ensuring advanced breakthrough development in those sectors of the Russian economy that determine its specialization in the world economy. This approach requires the implementation of strategies simultaneously in five directions.
The first direction is to ensure the use of Russia’s global competitive advantages in the fields of energy, transport, ecology, and the agricultural sector.
The second direction is the formation of a powerful scientific and technological complex that ensures Russia’s global specialization in high-tech markets.
The third direction is structural diversification of the economy based on increasing the competitiveness of the processing industry, high-tech industries and the “knowledge economy”.
The fourth direction is the creation of economic and social conditions for the realization of human creative potential and the formation of competitive human capital.
The fifth direction is the development of democracy and ensuring the protection of individual rights and freedoms.
Only by implementing the development formula “democracy - people - technology” and translating it into the everyday practice of society, will Russia be able to realize its potential opportunities and take its rightful place among the leading world powers.
4. 3 Scenario of innovative development
This scenario reflects the use of the competitive advantages of the Russian economy not only in traditional ones (energy, transport, agricultural sector), but also in new knowledge-intensive sectors and the knowledge economy, and the transformation of innovative factors into the main source of economic growth. It provides:
creation of an effective national innovation system and deployment of long-term programs and projects that ensure Russia's leading position in the markets of high-tech goods and services;
deep modernization of social infrastructure, including education, healthcare, and the housing sector, ensuring a significant increase in the quality of human capital and living standards of the population;
accelerated development of economic institutions that determine the protection of property rights, increased competitiveness of markets, reduced investment and business risks, reduced administrative barriers and improved quality of public services, development of new companies, development of public-private partnerships;
modernization of infrastructure sectors of the economy - transport, electricity, with a significantly higher increase in energy saving efficiency than in the second option;
the creation of new regional centers of economic development in the Volga region, the Far East and the South of Russia, overcoming the backlog of depressed regions;
development of a multi-vector model of integration into the world market, based on the expansion of foreign economic relations with the USA, the European Union, China, India and the formation of new, deeper forms of integration and cooperation with the CIS countries.
The implementation of this scenario makes it possible to achieve the level of socio-economic development characteristic of developed post-industrial countries by increasing the competitiveness of the Russian economy, its structural diversification and increased efficiency.
The innovative development scenario will be accompanied by active structural changes, supported by a significant increase in the efficiency of resource use. The share of the innovation sector in GDP will increase from 10.5% in 2006 to 18.9% in 2020 (in 2006 prices), while the share of the oil and gas sector will decrease from 19.7% to 12.1 percent.
This structural maneuver will be ensured by an increase in innovation activity and supported by increased spending: on R&D (from all sources of financing) - up to 2.8% of GDP in 2015 and 4% of GDP in 2020, on education - up to 5% of GDP in 2015 and 5.5% of GDP in 2020 (including government spending reaching 4.5% of GDP). With these parameters for the development of the “knowledge economy,” Russia becomes quite competitive in comparison with its European and Asian partners, and the comprehensive development of the national innovation system is ensured. The development of the social services sector on the principles of public-private partnership, ensuring an increase in the share of private and autonomous institutions in the field of social services for the population, will also have a positive impact on the quality of economic growth22.
4.4 Stages of innovative development
The innovative development of the Russian economy in the period 2008-2020 should be divided into three stages, differing in conditions, factors and risks of socio-economic development. The macroeconomic characteristics of each of these stages in comparison with the scenarios of energy and raw materials (II) and inertial (I) development are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Main macroeconomic indicators of development scenarios (growth rates, percent)
| 2006 | Average annual values | 2020/2007, % | ||||
| 2008-2012 | 2013-2017 | 2018-2020 | ||||
| GDP | 3 | 6,7 | 6,1 | 6,6 | 6,4 | 123 |
| 2 | 6,0 | 5,5 | 4,7 | 102 | ||
| 1 | 4,5 | 3,3 | 3,1 | 61 | ||
| Real disposable income of the population | 3 | 10,2 | 8,3 | 7,2 | 6,7 | 156 |
| 2 | 8,1 | 5,7 | 4,7 | 123 | ||
| 1 | 6,8 | 4,3 | 3,7 | 91 | ||
| Retail turnover | 3 | 13,9 | 8,7 | 6,5 | 6,3 | 150 |
| 2 | 8,6 | 5,3 | 4,5 | 124 | ||
| 1 | 6,7 | 4,4 | 3,7 | 91 | ||
| Investments | 3 | 13,7 | 11 | 10,7 | 9,6 | 270 |
| 2 | 10,9 | 8,8 | 6,6 | 211 | ||
| 1 | 5,6 | 4,2 | 4,1 | 83 | ||
| Export, billion dollars | 3 | 303,9 | 348 | 439 | 564 | 60 |
| 2 | 347 | 433 | 538 | 51 | ||
| 1 | 331 | 377 | 437 | 21 | ||
| Imports, billion dollars | 3 | 164,7 | 340 | 503 | 669 | 195 |
| 2 | 342 | 484 | 603 | 163 | ||
| 1 | 316 | 376 | 446 | 92 | ||
| Inflation | 3 | 9 | 5,6 | 4,5 | 3,3 | 85 |
| 2 | 6,2 | 4,8 | 3,4 | 90 | ||
| 1 | 7,5 | 6,1 | 4,0 | 111 | ||
| Energy intensity | 3 | -2,8 | -3,6 | -3,9 | -3,7 | -39 |
| 2 | -3,4 | -2,8 | -2,2 | -32 | ||
| 1 | -2,8 | -1,7 | -1,6 | -24 | ||
| Electrical capacity | 3 | -2,4 | -2,1 | -2,3 | -2,70 | -27 |
| 2 | -1,9 | -1,3 | -1,3 | -18 | ||
| 1 | -1,6 | -0,7 | -0,4 | -12 | ||
| Labor productivity | 3 | 6,2 | 6,3 | 7,5 | 7,1 | 138 |
| 2 | 6,2 | 6,5 | 5,8 | 119 | ||
| 1 | 4,8 | 4,3 | 3,9 | 75 | ||
The first stage (2008-2012) is the creation of an institutional environment for an innovative economy, the modernization of education and healthcare, the launch of development projects in high-tech and infrastructure sectors.
formation of a regulatory framework and regulators of corporate innovation activity;
structural modernization of education, healthcare and housing and communal services, ensuring affordable housing for the bulk of the population; overcoming the trend towards a relative decrease in spending on health care and education (in particular, spending on education decreases from 4.6% of GDP in 2006 to 4.4% in 2010 and in 2012 returns to the level of 4.6% of GDP);
taking measures to solve environmental problems (including for urbanized areas: recycling of production and consumption waste, providing the population with high-quality drinking water, etc.);
reforming and modernizing fundamental and applied science, creating an effective innovation infrastructure (increasing R&D spending from private and public sources from 1.0% of GDP in 2006 to 1.3% of GDP in 2010 and 1.8% in 2012);
the beginning of active modernization of high-tech sectors of the economy, the creation of new technological foundations; increasing the competitiveness of mass medium-tech industries (automotive industry, food industry, building materials industry, metallurgical and chemical production) will help strengthen the position of domestic products in the domestic market and change the dynamics of imports (the average annual growth rate of imports in physical terms should decrease from 26-27% in 2006-2007 to 7% in 2011-2012);
maintaining macroeconomic balance, ensuring a stable ruble exchange rate and reducing inflation to 5% per year by the end of the period;
implementation of large-scale projects for the development of transport, port and energy infrastructure, innovation centers, including using funds from the investment fund, the mechanism of special economic zones of industrial-production, port and technology-implementation type, concession agreements;
deployment of active work of state financial development institutions, which, subject to sufficient capitalization growth, can almost double credit support for mechanical engineering industries, small and medium-sized businesses in 2008-2012 and increase the volume of external private investment resources attracted into the economy by 10-12 percent;
the creation of new economic centers in the South of Russia, Eastern Siberia and the Far East;
development of public management based on results at the federal and regional levels, introduction of project-targeted management mechanisms.
Tab. 2. Target macroeconomic indicators of the first stage (2012 to 2007, %)
The second stage (2013-2017) is the transition of the economy to a new technological base based on promising developments in the field of information and communication, bio- and nanotechnologies.
The main priorities of socio-economic development at this stage include:
creating conditions for intensive technological renewal of Russian corporations on the basis of new (including resource-saving and environmentally friendly) technologies, expanding the positions of Russian companies in global markets for high-tech goods and services, consolidating Russia’s specialization and competence in high-tech markets;
ensuring rational specialization of Russian science, expanding the advanced positions of Russian science in priority areas of scientific research;
creation of a network of competitive centers (universities) of world-class higher education;
multi-vector integration of Russia into the world economy based on the implementation of large energy and transport projects;
increasing exports of transport services and information and communication services.
Table 3. Target macroeconomic indicators of the second stage
(2017 to 2012, %)
The third stage (after 2018) is consolidating Russia’s leading position in the world economy and developing in an innovative economy mode.
Development priorities:
accelerated development of human capital, ensuring leading positions in terms of education and healthcare, while increasing public and private spending on education and healthcare to a level comparable to developed countries;
development of environmentally friendly production;
the formation of workable economic associations in the Eurasian economic space with the participation and leading role of Russia;
achieving stable demographic indicators;
introduction of new forms of government, adapted to strengthen the role of global corporations and regions;
creating conditions for the sustainable and balanced development of the research and development sector, ensuring the expanded reproduction of knowledge, matching its level with the needs of the economy, and maintaining high levels of R&D expenses.
Table 4. Target macroeconomic indicators of the third stage (2020 to 2017, %)
Development prospects beyond 2020 are characterized by high uncertainty. The accumulated potential of knowledge and capital, corresponding to the advanced economies of the world, will determine the completion of the stage of catch-up growth, which creates the preconditions for reducing the GDP growth rate to 4.5-5% by 2030. As a result of the increased propensity to consume and the intensification of structural shifts in favor of the service economy and intangible assets, one can expect stabilization and even some reduction in the rate of accumulation.
After 2020, the Russian economy enters a development phase in the context of declining physical volumes of oil and petroleum products exports and declining oil production, while stabilizing gas export volumes. Under these conditions, the burden on innovative high- and medium-tech sectors of the economy and the service sector, as the main driving forces of economic growth and maintaining a balanced foreign trade, increases sharply.
At the turn of 2025-2030, we can expect the formation of a new technological innovation wave, which will create a new impetus for the development of the economy, especially the knowledge and service economy. The role of environmental and climatic barriers to growth will sharply increase, creating at the same time for Russia, due to the diversity of its natural resources, new unique development opportunities, subject to a significant reduction in the environmental intensity of the economy.
In 2020-2025, the implementation of new infrastructure projects related to the development of the Arctic and Eastern Siberia (including the implementation of the Sevsib and Subpolar Urals projects) will fully develop, which will initiate an increase in investment in the economy and create new poles of regional development.
3. Quality management Management of any processes is a circular cycle: planning (plan, P) - implementation ("do, D) - control (check, C) - control action (action, L). The quality management process can also be represented as a sequence of passage of these stages. The PDCA cycle ensures continuous monitoring and improvement of the level of production quality...
Management, regardless of its specific purpose, can be described using a number of parameters, the number and composition of which depend on the purposes of this description. The most general idea of an organization as an object of management can be obtained by having information about its purpose, legal basis, location, resources, history of creation and development, image in business circles and among consumers. Besides...
Carrying out an inventory
Ulyukaev, Navka and Patrushev
Income tax refund for treatment: registration procedure and calculation of the deduction amount
Import substitution - what is it?
OSAGO minimum insurance period