“The only real alternative to such a course of events (as we, in fact, previously determined) is the strategy of innovative development of the country, based on one of our main competitive advantages - on the realization of human potential, on the most effective application of knowledge and skills of people for the continuous improvement of technologies. , economic results, the life of society as a whole.

But I want to especially emphasize and I want everyone to understand this: the pace of innovative development should be radically higher than what we have today.

Yes, this way is much more difficult. It is more ambitious and requires maximum efforts on the part of the state, business, and the whole society. But in reality, we have no choice. What choice can there be between a chance to achieve leadership positions in the economy and social development, in ensuring the security of the country - and the loss of positions in the economy, in the field of security, and ultimately the loss of sovereignty?

Russia should become the most attractive country for life. And I am sure that we can do this without sacrificing the present for the sake of the so-called bright future, but on the contrary, improving the well-being of people day by day.

The transition to an innovative development path is associated primarily with large-scale investments in human capital.

Human development is both the main goal and a necessary condition for the progress of modern society. This is our absolute national priority both today and in the long term.

The future of Russia, our success depends on the education and health of people, on their desire for self-improvement and the use of their skills and talents. And what I am saying now was not said on the eve of the presidential elections, it is not an election campaign slogan, it is an urgent need for the development of the country. The future of Russia will depend on the motivation for innovative behavior of citizens and the return that each person's work brings.

The development of national education systems is therefore becoming a key element of global competition and one of the most important values ​​in life. And Russia has everything: both rich traditions and the potential to make our education - from school to university - one of the best in the world.

The educational system should incorporate the most modern knowledge and technologies. In the coming years, it is necessary to ensure the transition to education according to the standards of a new generation that meets the requirements of a modern innovative economy. Now the Ministry of Education is working on these standards. I want this to be a subject of discussion in society as a whole. These should be modern standards.

The sphere of education should become the basis for the expansion of scientific activity. In turn, science also has a significant educational potential. It is necessary to provide assistance to talented young people who are active in research activities, to help them successfully integrate into the scientific and innovative environment.

Today, despite the fact that we rank third in the world in terms of the number of scientists and are already among the leaders in public spending on scientific activities, according to its results, we are far from the leading positions. This is a direct consequence of the weak interaction between scientific and educational organizations, the state, business, insufficient attraction of private investment in science. Investments in research and development by business should be stimulated by the state and grow. […]

We face new and more complex tasks than before. economic policy. the main problem of today's Russian economy is its extreme inefficiency. Labor productivity in Russia remains unacceptably low. The same labor costs as in the most developed countries bring in Russia several times less return. And this is doubly dangerous in the face of growing global competition and increasing costs for skilled labor and energy.

The implementation of the innovative development scenario will allow us to achieve a radical increase in labor productivity. In the main sectors of the Russian economy, at least a fourfold increase in this indicator over 12 years should be achieved.

Solving the task of radically increasing the efficiency of our economy, we must create incentives and conditions for advancing a number of areas.

This is primarily the formation of a national innovation system. It should be based on the totality of public and private institutions that support innovation.

This is the consolidation and expansion of our natural advantages. Development of the basic sectors of the economy for us, including the deep processing of natural resources, the use of energy, transport and agricultural opportunities in Russia.

This is a large-scale modernization of existing industries in all sectors of the economy. To do this, we will need a fundamentally different quality of enterprise management, and a change in almost all technologies used in Russia, almost the entire fleet of machinery and equipment. Moreover, the best technologies are in most cases the most energy-efficient, energy-saving technologies, the most economical and environmentally friendly.

The most important direction is the development of new sectors of global competitiveness, primarily in high-tech industries that are leaders in the "knowledge economy" - this is the aerospace industry, shipbuilding, and energy. As well as the development of information, medical and other latest technologies.

We certainly need further construction of new and modernization of existing roads, stations, ports, airports, power plants and communication systems.

It is extremely important to develop the financial infrastructure to a level adequate to the growing needs of the economy. Ultimately, one of the world's financial centers should emerge in Russia. […]

A step-by-step plan must be made across the board!

Russia has repeatedly proved that it can do what others think is impossible. In the post-war years, we made an industrial breakthrough and were the first to master space. And over the past few years, they have recovered, confidently recovered after the chaos of the 90s, after the economic devastation and the breakdown of the entire former way of life. […] But, I repeat, today we are setting a much more ambitious task - to achieve a qualitative change in life, a qualitative change in the country, its economy and social sphere.

Russia has hardworking and educated people - people who have the desire to always be the first; in the national character of our people - the habit of winning, the desire to be free and independent.

Russia has colossal Natural resources and rich scientific potential. Russia has a clear understanding of how and with what resources we will solve our new large-scale, grandiose tasks.

And there is not a single serious reason that would not allow us to achieve our goals, not a single one!

I am absolutely sure that we will ensure that our country continues to strengthen its position as one of the world leaders, and our citizens live with dignity.”

Speech by Vladimir Putin at the expanded meeting of the State Council "On the development strategy of Russia until 2020", February 08, 2008 Moscow, Kremlin, in Sat: Russia 2020. The main tasks of the country's development, M., "Europe", p. 14-15, 18-19 and 29.

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", 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 innovation, through which economic growth and improvement in the quality of life of the population are carried out.

Topic 1. Innovative way of economic development

1.1 Principles for the development of Russia's innovation policy in the period of economic stabilization

Having begun socio-political and industrial-economic transformations, the country faced the choice of the most promising areas of state policy that determine the new contours of society. In scientific research, many development options are considered, among which two are distinguished: the continuation of market reforms with a raw-material orientation of the national economy, which is fraught with the collapse of the federal state; activation of economic transformations based on the stabilization of the political and legal system, a new socio-economic strategy, as well as the integration of the country into the world economy.

At the same time, an innovative way of economic development is also possible, which implies the interconnected formation of scientific, technical, industrial, financial, social, institutional and other spheres. At the same time, state protectionism of scientific and technological development, which provides a socially oriented technological breakthrough, can become the core.

For the country as a whole, the innovation strategy is the most significant goal of technological development, which determines the direction of priority financing, the creation of an intellectual and information structure for design, encouragement of management, which allows the maximum use of human resources, updating the legislative base of the innovation sphere, primarily in the field of taxation, as well as restructuring of the scientific sphere with the allocation of the 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-structural 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 innovative activities, the search for successful solutions requires coordination of their efforts.

We can single out the following principles for the formation of strategies for the development of the innovation sphere, which were used in Russia:

The strategy of "building up" - uses its own scientific, technical and production and technological potential with the involvement of foreign experience. With the rational use of the results of fundamental and applied science to increase the production potential, the production of new competitive products is expanding, high technologies are being processed, which 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 manufactured in developed industrial countries is mastered. Further, production is being 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 and production and technological achievements are used in the country's economy, by purchasing licenses for highly efficient latest technologies for mastering the production of new generation products that are in demand abroad. Subsequently, the country develops its own scientific, technical and industrial potential, ensures 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 and logistical) capabilities of the state and the ratio of the achieved milestones.

It is quite difficult to recommend for wide use the strategy of "transfer" in relation to the conditions of Russia due to limited resources, the unsatisfactory state of the domestic material and technical base of production. 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 business 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 high-tech competitive products. The same conditions and restrictions are typical for 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 built differently in relation to groups of industries in the real sector of the economy and to groups of industrial production, i.e. maximize competitive advantages. The priority of the chosen strategy of the state innovation policy should be given to highly effective, fairly quickly paid back innovation projects, in the implementation of which the state can jointly participate on an equity basis with private investors, taking on some of the risks.

To develop an innovative strategy that takes into account the current state of the Russian economy, it is necessary to create:

An innovation system that accumulates and analyzes the experience of innovation (monitoring) in various sectors of the economy;

A permanent intersectoral working group for the development and formation of its concept.

An intersectoral intellectual center that analyzes the state of the innovation process in Russia and in the industrialized countries of the world in order to develop tactics and strategies for resolving innovative situations.

A permanent "think tank" in the innovation sphere will help accelerate the search for the principle of structuring science, strengthen innovation activity at the junction of "science-production" in the new economic conditions, which will not only introduce scientific accents into the scientific environment, but also create new sources (including and off-budget) to finance scientific research.

Decentralization of the investment process in line with 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. and the ability to use the entire arsenal of tools for direct and indirect regulation of the inflow of private and public capital to finance innovation.

1.2 The concept of the state innovation policy of the Russian Federation

The initial prerequisites for the development of the concept are as follows: innovation activity in Russia is characterized by a 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 science-intensive products on the world market); only about 10% of industrial enterprises develop and master innovations (for comparison, in the USA about 30%); In terms of one ruble of costs, innovatively active enterprises provide output volumes that are 7 times higher than in production using traditional technologies.

An 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 oil (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 value (5.0%). Its lowest level is in the timber, woodworking and pulp and paper industries, building materials industry (2% each), as well as in electronics, light, glass, and porcelain and faience industries (2.1% each).

The cost structure for innovation is specific. The largest share in the costs of Russian enterprises for innovation was the purchase of machinery and equipment (48.1%), while only 2.4% of all funds spent on innovation were spent on the purchase of new technologies; for the acquisition of rights to patents, licenses, industrial designs and utility models - 0.5%.

In the total amount of expenses of enterprises for innovations, own funds account for 74%. The share of foreign investments does not exceed 10%, the federal budget and the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation - 4.4%; off-budget funds - 3.4%; other costs (private investments of borrowed funds, etc.) -8.2%.

A general indicator of the results of innovative activity is the share of innovative products in its total volume. It should be noted that in 2001 this figure decreased and amounted to 2.3% (in 2000 - 3.5%).

Insufficient efficiency of innovative activity is illustrated by the indicator of export. At present, the share of Russia in the total volume of trade in science-intensive civilian products remains low, which is estimated at 0.3-0.5% (for comparison, the share of China is 6%).

The situation is dramatic in those areas where, for various reasons, Russian developments lag far 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 for foreign goods led to a drop in demand for domestic science-intensive products, ousting them from the domestic market.

Under these conditions, enterprises reduce the volume of production of science-intensive products, giving priority to technically simpler and cheaper ones. The volume of production of products of the fifth technological level, the core of which is the electronics industry, computing, fiber optics, software, telecommunications, and robotics, is declining.

However, Russia still retains a number of economic sectors that are competitive at the global level. 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 types of military equipment, communications and telecommunications, computer software products.

The country has retained a significant scientific and technological potential, which, together with high-tech production of the defense and civilian industries, makes it possible to form and implement a national technological strategy in the course of 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 activity, measures to increase its activity and develop its infrastructure, and the development of economic and financial mechanisms contributing to this.

In accordance with the Concept and the plan for its implementation, a draft federal law "On innovation activity and state innovation policy" was developed, which provided for legal norms aimed at stimulating innovation activity and developing science-intensive industries. In particular, the forms of state support were determined, including the financing of innovations, the placement of a state order for the purchase of products created as a result of innovative activities, and the provision of benefits to its subjects.

To coordinate the activities of federal executive bodies and implement state scientific, technical and innovation policy, a government commission on scientific and innovation policy was formed. In order to create conditions for increasing the competitiveness of the Russian industry on the basis of science-intensive products and the use of high technologies in the real sector of the economy, a decree of the government of the Russian Federation "On the formation of federal centers of science and high technologies" was adopted. 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 Science and Innovation Policy approved the main directions of off-budget financing of high-risk projects (venture investment systems" in the scientific and technical field for 2000-2005 and a decision was made to establish the Venture Innovation Fund. At the same time, the issues of strengthening innovation potential in the It is necessary to develop a clear mechanism for the interaction of state authorities at the federal level and at the level of constituent entities of the Russian Federation in order to coordinate national and regional interests in the field of innovative development.

At the same time, the issues of strengthening innovative potential at the regional level remained unresolved. It is necessary to develop a clear mechanism for the interaction of state authorities 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 managing federal property and state blocks of shares, ensuring the observance of state interests in innovative development, expanding the state's ability to manage state-owned enterprises.

1.3 Goals and methods of forming the state innovation policy for the period up to 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 to the domestic and foreign markets, replace imported products in the domestic market and, on this basis, transfer industrial production to the stage of sustainable economic growth.

To achieve these 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 competitiveness of products;

Coordinating the actions of federal executive authorities, authorities of the 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 for the 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 technological achievements, attracting free capital to finance projects for the technological re-equipment of industry;

Preservation and development of production and technological potential, its use to maintain a 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 for international and national standards of Russia;

Use in the real sector of the economy of innovative technologies and industries that ensure the production of competitive products and automation of complex technological processes.

To solve the main tasks 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 civil industries;

A reserve of production capacities 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 innovative projects is focused on the implementation of the main directions of structural adjustment, 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 industries with the gradual curtailment of unpromising and obsolete industries (restructuring of the economy);

Assistance in 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, the preservation of valuable elements of the accumulated scientific and technical potential;

Accelerating the adaptation of enterprises and scientific organizations to market conditions;

The implementation of innovative programs is carried out, as a rule, in two stages. The first stage is the creation of economic and financial prerequisites for investing the entire range of research, design and subsequent work on the creation of software products, including the implementation of a system of subsequent program activities. The attracted additional resources, in addition to budgetary allocations, are focused on financing and supporting not only research and development work, but also the creation of fast-payback projects ("points of growth"), the priority of which is determined by the inclusion of effective and reliable "accompanying technologies" into the system of program activities " productions.

The second stage is the active implementation of the system of program activities (creation and fine-tuning of program products). The main focus of state support at this stage is shifting to the implementation of scientific and technical potential. At the same time, it is taken into account that intense competition is inevitable when entering a foreign market, so the impact of possible foreign investment in the implementation of certain program activities will be subject to political conditions that reflect the interests of foreign competitors.

As a rule, the annual investment from the funds state budget for the implementation of the federal target program (FTP) approved by the government of the Russian Federation, are not allocated in full. It is obvious that the requested (estimated) 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 targeted program.

In this section of the target program, the results of the development of the so-called master business plan (its summary) are usually placed, accompanied by appropriate comments. Among the performance indicators that must be noted when developing and submitting the master business plan to the federal budget are:

Technical, economic and socio-economic efficiency of the program as a whole, subprograms and individual groups of the system of measures (desirable);

Calculations confirming the prevention of negative economic consequences from the implementation of the program;

The amount of prevented economic damage in connection with the timely implementation of this FTP, including due to the removal of non-competitive products from production;

The value of all types of income (profit, foreign exchange earnings, etc.) in 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 reserve of applied research, experimental design, experimental models, as well as a reserve array of the latest technologies.

The second group is related to ensuring the introduction of scientific developments of a new generation, the transition to an innovative type of reproduction, overcoming negative trends in the development of innovation, updating production potential and achieving, on this basis, higher economic growth rates necessary to solve urgent economic problems.

The third group includes FTPs 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 formed to solve major scientific, technical, industrial, economic and social problems identified in the course of developing long-term and medium-term state forecasts for the socio-economic development of the Russian Federation. This makes it possible to closely link federal targeted programs with the solution of the key tasks 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 FTP for their financing from budgetary and non-budgetary sources. The basis for these programs should be the priorities of the state innovation policy.

Taking into account the fact that there are a sufficient number of developments in the scientific, technical and innovation spheres that are ready for development in production, the program method of bringing the economy to an innovative development path should be combined with the implementation of individual innovative projects of a high degree of commercialization. Such projects can give the greatest effect in non-capital-intensive sectors of the economy with a rapid turnover of capital, high budgetary efficiency and a rapid turnover of products. The focus of innovative revival will be, first of all, the production of the consumer sector of the economy: the food, light and medical industries, the timber complex, and the production of household appliances.

Budgetary funds for the completion of "backward" research and development work for their implementation in production should be allocated taking into account:

Competitive evaluation of a business plan for fast-acting innovative projects;

Confirmation by a specific enterprise (producer of products) of sufficient volumes of invested own funds;

Prices and volumes of products (in relation to the reasonable needs of the market, 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 should be ensured.

Questions for the exam on the topic

Principles of formation of strategies for the development of the innovation sphere.

Initial prerequisites for the development of the concept of state innovation policy.

The concept of state innovation policy.

The main objectives of the state innovation policy.

The advantages of the Russian economy used to solve the problems of innovative development.

The main objectives of innovation policy.

The direction of the FTP. Stages of implementation of innovative programs.

Federal target programs.

The author considers the main factors hindering the development of technological innovations and Russia's transition to an innovative direction of economic development, lists the reasons for the low innovative activity of Russian industrial organizations, and proposes measures that stimulate and ensure the transition to an innovative economy.

Keywords: innovative development, technological innovation, financial institutions, investment.

The financial and economic crisis clearly showed that sustainable economic growth in Russia in the long term can only be achieved by building an innovative economy based on modern and constantly updated technologies. In order to ensure national security and realize Russia's new competitive opportunities in world markets in the post-crisis period, which will be characterized by the restructuring of the world economy, it is necessary to accelerate the use of the latest scientific and technical solutions, develop high-tech science-intensive industries and improve the efficiency of innovation processes. The basis for the innovative development of the economy is the intensification of innovative activities for the creation and widespread use of new industries, products, services, technological processes, which are the main factors in the qualitative growth of production volumes, investments, foreign trade turnover, and employment.

Accelerated innovative and high-tech development of the domestic economy is a top priority for Russia.

In order to switch to an innovative development scenario for the country, Russia will have to simultaneously solve the problems of sharply reducing the existing gap in the level of technological development of the economy as a whole in the medium and long term, and creating conditions for ensuring advanced breakthrough development in those sectors that determine its future specialization in the world economy.

Long-term competitive advantages can only be created through significant investments in the renewal of fixed assets in basic industries and the creation of new industrial sectors that produce high-tech products based on technological innovations and the achievements of modern science.

For the country's transition to innovative economic development of a socially oriented type, it is necessary to create additional incentives for innovation and overcome the system of resistance to innovation that has developed in the Russian state.

At present, Russia's share in the world volume of trade in civilian science-intensive products is estimated at 0.3% (US share - 36%, Japan - 30%, Germany - 17%, China - 6%).

Over the past 12 years, there has been no reduction in material and energy costs in industrial organizations, as well as a decrease in the level of environmental pollution.

The movement towards an innovative economy in Russia at such a slow pace does not allow reaching the advanced technological frontiers, leads to an increase in dependence on technology imports, a decrease in the demand for its own scientific and technical potential, an increase in barriers between science and production, an outflow of highly qualified specialists from Russia, an uncontrolled leakage of Russian results of intellectual activity outside the country.

Among the factors hindering the development of technological innovations, it is necessary to single out, first of all, economic factors: high stakes on loans from commercial banks and the unavailability of funds in general for innovative organizations, the need for financial support from the state, the lack of own funds, the high cost of innovation, long payback periods for innovation.

In second place are production and other factors, which include: the low innovative potential of organizations, the resistance of organizations to innovation, the lack of qualified personnel. At the same time, it should be noted that many industrial organizations do not have information about domestic and foreign technologies, since in the conditions of the economic crisis there has been a decrease in the level of development of industry science.

Significant reasons for the low innovative activity of Russian industrial organizations are also:

lack of significant incentives for the implementation of innovative activities;

aging of the technological and research base, which objectively hinders the process of developing new technologies, increases their cost and increases the time for their entry into the market;

insufficient amount of long-term borrowed resources provided by the domestic private financial sector (the share of loans for a period of more than 3 years is only 15% of the total amount of funds issued to enterprises Russian banks), which contributes to the redistribution of limited resources in favor of the raw materials export sector to the detriment of investment opportunities in other sectors (40% of investment loans are concentrated in the fuel and extractive industries);

raw material orientation of the economy, imbalance in the structure of production, depreciation of production capacities;

high share of energy and transport costs in the cost of production.

A high level of investment attraction is required for the transition to an innovative economy in Russia. The solution of this problem only with the use of direct budget financing is impossible, including due to the limited state resources. At the same time, attracting extrabudgetary investments is complicated by high risks and long-term implementation of large innovative projects that can significantly influence the transition to an innovative economy.

According to the experience of many countries, financial institutions for development (the Investment Fund of the Russian Federation, the State Corporation Vnesheconombank, the State Corporation Russian Technologies and Rusnano, OJSC Russian Venture Company, etc.) should increase the efficiency of using public resources, act as catalysts attract private investment in priority sectors and sectors of the economy, help improve the institutional environment, accelerate the creation and use of innovations. However, to date, the established development institutions have not begun to function fully and have not had a significant impact on the solution of the problem of transition from the extractive and raw material economy of Russia to an innovative economy. It is rather difficult to implement new projects through the established financial development institutions. These institutions have insurmountable obstacles (in terms of project topics and mechanisms for their selection, in terms of funding, in terms of the duration of the examination, and other indicators).

Attracted budget investments in the innovation sphere do not bring the expected return. Attracting private investors to this area is slowing down, effective mechanisms for public-private partnerships have not been worked out. Attracting private-state capital to the process of mastering new technologies is constrained, since private investors do not see the interest of the Government of the Russian Federation and other federal executive bodies in the implementation of innovative projects.

When choosing innovative projects entering financial institutions for development, it is necessary to take into account the results of the analysis of the strategic challenges of the coming decade and the priority vital interests of Russia following from this analysis, related to parrying these challenges:

the need for urgent measures to sharply increase the competitiveness of the economy and, first of all, the innovation component in the priority areas of macrotechnologies;

ensuring connectivity, including transport, and the availability of movement of the country's population as the most important factor in ensuring the stability and integrity of the country;

ensuring the safety (including environmental) of the life of the population, radical improvement of the living environment, ensuring the health of the nation, etc.;

creation of a favorable innovation climate in priority macroeconomic niches in which a return to the world level of development is potentially possible (new types of fuel, nuclear technologies, Information Technology, supercomputers, medical equipment, cutting-edge diagnostic tools, medicines for the treatment of viral, cardiovascular, oncological and neurological diseases, power engineering, nuclear and hydrogen energy, advanced transport systems, aircraft industry, space).

To ensure the transition to innovative development of the country's economy, the Government of the Russian Federation has developed a number of recommendations on using the potential of the military-industrial complex for this purpose. However, the implementation of these measures is being delayed. In order to prevent the dissipation of resources for conducting large-scale scientific research, it is necessary to concentrate resources on areas that ensure the implementation of development priorities that are especially important for our country. At the same time, the scientific and technological policy aimed at ensuring technological leadership should be based on a limited list of strategic priorities. The choice of priorities for the development of innovative activity should be carried out taking into account the Priority Directions for the Development of Science, Technology and Engineering of the Russian Federation, Critical Technologies of the Russian Federation, defined in Decrees of the President of the Russian Federation.

Considering that up to 80% of morally obsolete and physically worn-out technological equipment is operated in the high-tech sector of domestic mechanical engineering, the equipment fleet renewal ratio is no more than 1% (with the required level of 12-15%), the average age of more than half of the fleet exceeds 20 years (i.e. will soon cross or has already crossed the critical mark of 26 years, which corresponds to one hundred percent physical deterioration of equipment), imports of machine tool products in 2008 amounted to 87% (which can lead to absolute import dependence of domestic engineering), an effective tool for innovative development of the economy could be the federal target program "National technological base" for 2010-2012, aimed at ensuring the technological development of the domestic industry.

The system of managing the innovative development of the domestic economy that has developed in the country is too multi-link and too inertial. There is no clear personal responsibility of officials of the federal executive bodies for the implementation of the decisions taken. It is necessary to clarify the personal responsibility of state officials for the implementation of the decisions made on the innovative development of the economy, as well as federal executive bodies, within the established time limits.

To activate innovation processes, taking into account the priorities of social economic development Russia needs the development and implementation of additional specific measures, among which, first of all, economic, organizational, tax and legal measures should be formed to make the innovation sphere more attractive than the mining and raw materials. Such measures may include the following:

Create special government funds to support innovation. Innovation activity support funds should be financed from the federal budget (approximately 70%), as well as from regional budgets, state corporations and resource companies. Financing of the funds should also be carried out by transferring the funds of enterprises to them, which will be excluded from the taxable base by an amount proportional to the funds transferred;

introduce programs for the provision of preferential loans, including providing participants in the innovation process with the opportunity to obtain loans from commercial banks for preferential terms under the guarantee of the state. To do this, it is necessary to create a state fund, the funds of which will be used to pay interest on these loans. Such a measure will allow, on the one hand, the development of organizations participating in the innovation process, and, on the other hand, the development of the very sector of bank lending to the innovation process;

ensure the involvement of insurance companies in the insurance of loans issued to participants in the innovation process, as well as in the insurance of innovative projects;

ensure the development of existing and the creation of new organizations, which are essential elements of the innovation infrastructure.

The main tasks of such organizations should be:

study of the need for technological developments, which will increase the effectiveness of the actions of developers;

selection of optimal sources of project financing;

organization of work with potential investors, including the preparation of necessary documents;

promotion of patenting in Russia and foreign countries of domestic inventions in the scientific and technical field;

promoting the protection of rights to domestic intellectual property;

provide legal tax incentives to organizations engaged in the field of innovation. Among the special tax incentives that should be used to stimulate innovation, include:

discounts on profits in the amount of capital investments in new high-tech equipment;

income tax rebates in the amount of R&D expenses;

attribution to current costs of expenses for certain types of equipment used in scientific research;

taxation of profits at reduced rates for small and medium-sized enterprises focused on the production of innovative products.

Let us consider the possible results of the proposed measures on the example of the Oryol region, with the current level of development of market relations in which the interaction of innovation and scientific and technical spheres, in the presence of favorable organizational, legal and financial and economic factors, can give a powerful impetus to the growth of industrial production and mobilize investment potential. The transition to an innovative way of economic development is one of the priority areas for the socio-economic development of the region in the near future.

innovation economy russia

Table 1 - The number of innovation-active organizations by type of innovation activity in the Oryol region for 2000-2009.

Indicators
Number of innovation-active organizations (total in the Oryol region)
by types of innovative activity:
research and development of new products, services and methods of their production (transfer)
production engineering, design and other developments of new products, services and methods of their production (transfer)
acquisition of machinery and equipment related to technological innovation
acquisition of new technologies:
of which the rights to patents, licenses for the use of inventions, industrial designs, utility models
acquisition of software
other types of production preparation for the release of new products, the introduction of new services or methods of their production (transfer)
education and training of personnel related to innovation
marketing research
other technological innovations

Analyzing Table 1, we can conclude that over the past 10 years, in the Oryol region as a whole, the number of enterprises engaged in innovative activities in one way or another has increased by 18%. Most actively Oryol enterprises use new innovative equipment, machines and software, as well as conduct research and development of new products and services. The proposed measures to stimulate innovation activity will greatly facilitate the transition to an innovative development path for the enterprises of the region.

In the Oryol region, good prerequisites for the development of innovation activities have been created. This is due to the presence of a significant scientific, technical and human potential, as well as a developed regulatory legal framework, including regional laws “On innovation and state innovation policy in the Oryol region”, “On science and state scientific and technical policy in the Oryol region” and others

The main condition for accelerating the processes of introducing science-intensive products and advanced technologies is the presence of a developed innovative infrastructure, in the creation and development of elements of which the Oryol State Technical University, the Oryol Chamber of Commerce and Industry, FGU "Oryol CSM" and other enterprises and organizations of the region have achieved the greatest success.

The most important result of the proposed measures in the country as a whole will be the contribution to the growth of gross domestic product by increasing the output of high-tech products, which will increase the competitiveness of the domestic economy based on innovation. In addition, as world experience shows, the appearance of innovative products on the market stimulates demand growth.

Thus, the formation of priorities both in the field of goals and tools for ensuring the transition of the domestic economy to an innovative development path is limited not so much by the limited resource base as by the existing production structure, including the system of relations between business entities and the business sector and the state.

Literature

• 1. Foreign economic activity / ed. B. M. Smitienko, V. K. Pospelova. - M., 2008 - 247s.
• 2. Geography of the innovative sphere of the world economy. / Ed. N.S. Mironenko. - M .: "Press Solo", 2008 - 178s.
• 3. Karlinskaya E.V., Katansky V.B., Innovation management in Russia: knowledge and benefits of application - M .: InnIT LLC, 2010, - 34 p.
• 4. International economic relations/ under total ed. prof. V. E. Rybalkina. - M. UNITY-DANA, 2009 - 354s.
• 5. Source www.rusventure.ru

Mechanisms and methods of regulation in the context of transition to innovative development Author unknown

1.1. Transition to an innovative way of development and the state

The transition to innovative development for Russia has become the most urgent challenge of the time. Quite large-scale practical steps are being taken in this area, but their economic and theoretical substantiation, in our opinion, needs to be further developed. In this regard, we will consider the process of transition to an innovative economy from a theoretical standpoint and try to assess the role of the state in this process.

1.1.1 A simple case: innovative development at the industrial stage

The simplicity of the case under consideration is as follows. First, fast forward to the industrial stage of development, say the first half of the twentieth century, where there is no sign of, no talk of fasting. industrial society no. Secondly, let's take an integral national economy without any influence of globalization. Thirdly, let's assume that the elite of this conditional country is aware of the transition to innovative development as a task and is ready to act in order to solve it.

Even such a relatively simple situation requires the solution of at least three theoretical problems. The first problem is to answer the question, what is the development of innovative and non-innovative type? By what criteria should we determine that one national economy is developing innovatively, and the other - 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, 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 state that the transition to an innovative development path has taken place.

For example, the authors of the monograph “The Way to the 21st Century. Strategic Problems and Prospects of the Russian Economy" write that "7 highly developed countries own 46 out of 50 macro technologies that provide competitive production, and the rest of the world - 3-4 macro technologies". At the same time, “out of 46 macrotechnologies 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 assume that Italy, like the United States, is developing innovatively? The United States spends $385.5 billion a year on research and development, Russia $25.5 billion.

How much should we increase these spending to be considered an innovative country?

The second problem is the following. If this economy is moving to an innovative development path and it is a market economy, will the role of the state be strengthened 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 will agree that in a market national economy of an industrial type, the intensification of the flow of innovations enhances the role of state regulation. This is due to the simple fact that it takes a long time from an idea to commercial implementation of an innovative project, during which there are only costs and no results. The larger this lag and the higher the costs, the less willingly the private owner invests.

However, even if the connection between innovations and the state is recognized in principle, the question of the degree of influence of innovations on strengthening the role of the state in the economy remains open. If we proceed from the fact that the main meaning of state participation in the innovation process is to provide resources for unprofitable 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 go down, and the status of the bureaucracy will go up. In the case when 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 relationship 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 opposed to the transition to an innovative type of development, and the question arises about the possibilities and ways to suppress it by the bureaucracy.

Let us assume that we have become firmly convinced that the transition to an innovative type of development requires a significant strengthening of the role of the state in the economy. Then a third theoretical problem arises: what is the state as 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 has been 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 not clear how such concepts as “government regulation” and “plan” correlate. 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, starting from the Inca Empire and ending with 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 the market), then this is: a) domestic economy enterprises; b) economic behavior of regional authorities; c) state regulation proper; and d) non-market transactions at the level of the world economy.

As you can see, state 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 policy- forms of planning. It follows from this that the plan is an independent economic reality, opposite to the market. Accordingly, state regulation of the market is not just an outgrowth on the body of a market economy, but is something independent and opposite to the market.

If state regulation of the market economy is one of the forms of the plan, then a single planning mechanism must be identified that combines the logic of the behavior of the authorities in the period of Stalinism and the logic of the authorities acting in accordance with the monetary rule. Basically, it's the same logic.

In our opinion, modern economic theory has not revealed this logic. What are the reasons why there is no satisfactory theory of the plan? The main reason is that, as noted above, Western theorists do not consider the plan (state activity) as an independent economic reality, opposite 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 evaluated in the same way as the behavior of a private owner in the market, and society is just the sum of individuals. Meanwhile, of course, this is not so, and there is an opposite principle of holism, 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 a plan within capital is considered. However, the plan within capital cannot fully reveal its properties and laws. Studying the plan within capital is like judging capitalism by studying self-supporting relations in the economy of the Soviet Union. For a real disclosure of the laws of the plan, it is necessary to study the economic systems where the plan has received its maximum development. Only then does the plan within capital become clear.

3. Guided by methodological individualism and considering developed capitalism, modern economic thought interprets the economic activity of the state in several directions.

First, in macroeconomics, the state is mainly understood as a certain subject that influences the supply and demand that has already been formed by the market. It is clear that an alternative to the market mechanism of the plan is not disclosed here. Government spending and taxes simply shift the functions of supply and demand. At the same time, the impact of the state is often presented in general as something exogenous in relation to the economy.

Secondly, the activity of the state is considered within the framework of the economy of the public sector. In this direction, economists, in our opinion, have received more serious results. In particular, here an attempt is made to justify 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 progress made, the main issue remains unresolved. If we take a market economy, then its simplest economic basis will be a trade transaction between private owners. This trade deal is described both in Marxism and in marginalism and partly in institutionalism. The question is, what is the same 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, which is unknown to modern Western science. The simplest elements of a trade transaction are the commodity itself and its price. It is to price signals that market entities should respond. The alternative planning mechanism should have parameters similar to the product and price. Similar but different.

As such alternative parameters, we offer nomenclature and volume. The item is replaced by the nomenclature of the plan, and the price is replaced by the volume. The process of formation of the value of any product takes place in price and volume forms. Depending on what form the product, in turn, takes - the form of capital or plan, either the price or the volume variety of value is actualized in it. In the conditions of a planned economy, instead of a 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 class of bureaucracy. This is the movement of the plan.

As a result, if we admit that in the industrial market economy, in the situation of its transition to an innovative development path, strengthening of state regulation is required, then this means strengthening the action of the nomenclature-volumetric mechanism.

The general ideological mood today is such that the economic activity of the state is considered less effective than the activity of private individuals. Impressive figures are cited as evidence: “The Soviet Union mined 8 times more iron ore than the United States, smelting three times more iron from this ore, twice as much steel from this iron. Machines from this metal produced at a cost about the same as the United States. In the USSR, the consumption of raw materials and energy per unit of the final product was, respectively, 1.6 and 2.1 more than in the USA. The average construction period for an industrial enterprise in the USSR exceeded 10 years, in the USA - less than 2. 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 timber products.

However, even if these "killer" statistics are accepted without critical evaluation, the problem of the comparative efficiency of capital and plan remains. The functioning of economic systems is associated with two effects: the effect of stimulation and the effect of regulation. These effects can be both positive and negative. Functioning market system accompanied by a positive effect of stimulation and a negative effect of regulation. planned system gives rise to 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 the redistribution of resources in the innovative sphere of the economy. The comparative efficiency of the market and the plan, if it is necessary to switch to an innovative type of development, is determined by a combination of the effects of stimulation and mobilization. If during the transition from the plan to the market the positive effect of stimulation is less than the negative effect of mobilization, and in the reverse transition from the market to the plan the negative effect of stimulation is less than the positive effect of mobilization, then the planned economy is more efficient. And, accordingly, vice versa.

1.1.2. The first complicating circumstance: the post-industrial transition

We have considered a simple case of the national economy in the conditions of the industrial stage, which is moving to an innovative path of development. Let us now take into account a number of circumstances complicating this simple case and the problems that arise in this connection.

The first complicating circumstance is the transition from the industrial to the post-industrial stage of development. Here the well-known problem immediately arises, what is the content of this stage. There are definitions of the 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 has given rise to such a phenomenon as globalization. The problem that arises in connection with the post-industrial transition and globalization is the answer to the question, does Russia have the right to an innovative development path? 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 planet's resource base is depleted, and on the other hand, the innovation process requires more and more 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 still had to leave 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 mankind, because we (the people of the Earth) run the risk of 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 as follows. If character economic life changes radically, what changes does the market and the plan undergo? The market and planning mechanisms of an agrarian society are radically different from those of 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 non-existence. Naturally, we are primarily interested in whether the fundamental connection between the country's transition to an innovative path of development and the strengthening of the plan to the detriment of the market remains at the post-industrial stage.

Globalization leads to the decline of nation-states, and hence government regulation. This means that the state's ability to influence the innovation process is weakening. In this regard, the problem of unfavorable for Russia innovative way of development deserves attention. Such a statement of the question may seem strange. However, let's take a closer look at the situation. Innovation does 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 translate into a specific result, it will be appropriated by global network structures and used for their benefit. A feature of the network organization of the economy is that there is no need to export 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 give 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, to the detriment of the standard of living, it will pay for progress, but not implement it and not use it. Here, in a gradual form, what happened at once as a result of the democratization of Russia, when the West gained access to many technologies created in the Soviet Union, can be fulfilled.

The problem of petrodollars adjoins the same problem. Russia, like other oil exporters, sells it at a high price. These petrodollars can, using the nomenclature-volumetric mechanism, be pumped into the innovation sector, infringing on current consumption. However, suppose we decide not to go innovative and spend petrodollars on consumption. The question arises, “Is it a hat according to Senka?” Perhaps, inflated oil prices deprive 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 a simple case of the transition of the industrial national economy to an innovative development path is associated with the beginning of the post-industrial stage.

1.1.3. The second complicating circumstance: features 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 affected by all the features of the Russian economy. And here, once again, the problem of the presence or absence of a special path for Russia emerges.

The specificity of Russia is a) severe 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) drugged, demotivated, desocialized and shrinking population.

These four circumstances increase costs and reduce the result of economic activity in Russia. If we proceed from the fact that the implementation of large innovative projects requires planned mobilization of resources, then, taking into account the aforementioned specifics of Russia, we get the following.

First, due to a less favorable cost-benefit ratio than in an average industrial country, we have a lower resource base for innovation.

Second, due to the same unfavorable cost-benefit ratio, the need for resources to provide comparable innovations is higher.

Also, the combination of a scarce 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 a conditional, 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 whether we have enough resources for innovative development at all? During the period of industrialization, we needed a colossal effort of all 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 up to 2028 could set the task priority development on 12–16 macrotechnologies. But at the same time, they also cite data that the United States has 20–22 macro technologies, while Japan has only 7. This suggests that only a very rich country can develop macro technology. Only a rich country can do it, using its resources and exploiting the periphery, long time invest in macro technology without getting a return.

Thus, the second complicating circumstance of the transition to innovative development is considered - the peculiarities of Russia.

1.1.4. Third complicating circumstance: Russia's peripheral position

Let us consider the third complicating circumstance - the peripheral position of our country in the world 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 country of the second, and even the third echelon. What follows from this position of ours?

First, it is not clear what the nature of the post-industrial transition is for a peripheral country. Let's say some peripheral country supplies the world's development centers with bananas or oil. First it provided 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 path of development?

Secondly, the countries of the periphery supply the world's development centers with resources on the basis of unequal exchange. Consequently, our transition to an innovative type of development is even more aggravated by the fact that the “tribute” paid by Russia in favor of the West must be deducted from the resources that Russia has at its disposal and which can be mobilized for scientific and technological development. And this, in turn, exacerbates the dilemma even more - either the market, but without innovation, or innovation, but without the market.

One might get the impression that this paragraph contradicts the question posed above: does Russia, together with other resource suppliers, have the right to deprive world centers of 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 development path and the entire burden of responsibility arising from such a goal.

Thirdly, the new peripheral position of Russia 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, which the periphery is compelled to follow. That is, we do not decide what innovative development is and how long we need to move to it. We just fit into the trajectory given from the outside. But the more backward the country, the greater the amount of resources per unit of time it has to mobilize in order 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. The fourth complicating circumstance: the global crisis

When the crisis came, the opponents of the market were delighted 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 is normal and good; it's like a cleansing shower for a healthy market body.

At the moment, one gets the impression that the supporters of the systemic crisis of capitalism have hurried in their assessments. It has already been noted above that capitalism will disappear at the post-industrial stage. His death must be accompanied by systemic crisis processes. However, this does not seem 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.

First, is there an adequate model of the business cycle in economics today?

Secondly, if we admit that the world is moving to a post-industrial stage of development, then even the usual 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 impact of ICT on the modern crisis. A.V. Buzgalin considers the current 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 relies on the system of international institutions and relationships that have developed in recent decades, it is 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 context of the post-industrial transition.

From book Economic theories and goals of society author Galbraith John Kenneth

Chapter I Functions economic system and Economics Chapter II The Neoclassical Model Chapter III The Neoclassical Model II: The State Chapter IV Consumption and the Concept of the Household Chapter V General theory high level of development Part II. Market

From the book ABC of Economics author Gwartney James D

Part III Economic progress and the role of the state The state, which protects the rule of law and provides benefits that society cannot get "on the market", contributes to the welfare of the whole country, BUT ... The state is not a plug for every barrel. It cannot be

From the book Crisis Management author Babushkina Elena

44. Innovative potential of enterprises, its role in anti-crisis management The process of forming an innovative system is affected by the level of innovative potential of an enterprise, that is, its ability to achieve its goals. The realization of these goals acts as

From the book Banks and Money [SI] author Simonov Nikolai Sergeevich

CHAPTER 11 Welcome to State Capitalism! - Transition to a new model of economic development, expansion of state banks, creation of state corporations In early December 1998, 1 barrel of brent oil cost only $9.55. Over the next 10 years, prices for this

From the book Innovative Path of Russia author Danilin Pavel

Pavel Danilin, Natalia Kryshtal Innovative way

From the book Innovation Management: tutorial author Mukhamedyarov A. M.

Chapter 1 Innovation and innovation process 1.1. Innovations as a source of satisfaction of social needs Scientific and technological progress, especially its modern stage - scientific and technological revolution, promote the development of mass production of many kinds

From the book PEOPLE, PEOPLE, NATION ... author Gorodnikov Sergey

1.4. The innovation process as an object of control The characteristic of the innovation process as an object of control includes three aspects: 1) disclosure of the content of the innovation cycle; 2) a clear understanding of innovations in their subject (material) content; 3)

From the book Mechanisms and methods of regulation in the context of the transition to innovative development author author unknown

4. The State of the Tribal Nobility and the Public State

From the book Your Neighbor - 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 corresponding to the tasks set. The totality of these plans

From the book Innovation Management author Makhovikova Galina Afanasievna

Taxes, government... government again Many high-income Americans, both the BSS and the NSP, are concerned about the actions of the federal government. The private individual is powerless before this power, which is independent of him. Dr. South indicated that he was afraid of the actions of the state in four

From the book New Russian Doctrine: It's Time to Spread Your Wings author Bagdasarov Roman Vladimirovich

Galina Afanasievna Makhovikova, Nadezhda Filippovna Efimova Innovative

From the book Strategies for the Development of Scientific and Industrial Enterprises of the Aerospace Complex. innovative way author Baranov Vyacheslav Viktorovich

8.1. Innovative potential of an enterprise The readiness and ability of an innovative enterprise to implement and reproduce an innovation for the first time characterizes its innovative potential. Innovation potential (states, industries, enterprises) –

From the book Risk Management, Audit and Internal Control author Filatov Alexander Alexandrovich
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 advancing development. In the 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 a 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 four 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. This should take place in the following areas: ensuring the stability of energy supply to the world's largest consumers of energy resources; the formation of a modern transport infrastructure, the use of the transit potential of the Russian economy, the closure of cargo and passenger flows to Russian transport corridors; production and export of environmentally friendly products, import substitution in domestic markets for livestock products.
The second direction is the formation of a powerful scientific and technological complex that ensures Russia's global specialization in high-tech markets: nanotechnologies, nuclear energy, aviation, shipbuilding, rocket and space technologies, and software.
The third direction is the structural diversification of the economy based on increasing the competitiveness of the processing industry, high-tech industries and the "knowledge economy" by: improving business conditions and creating a favorable investment climate; creation of mechanisms for ensuring the innovative activity of companies; formation and development of the national financial infrastructure focused on long term financing investments, growth of capitalization of companies, reduction of investment risks and costs of investors; development of industrial infrastructure, including its transport, energy and information components.
The fourth direction is the formation of competitive human capital, primarily through ensuring: the availability of quality education, health and culture services; high professional and territorial mobility of labor resources, increasing the affordability of housing; improving the quality of the environment and the ecological conditions of human life.
In the transition to an innovative type of development in Russia, it is necessary to carefully study the experience of other countries in order to distribute the available resources more efficiently. In developed countries, the high-tech complex determines economic growth and “pulls” the rest of the economy with it, forcing it to adapt to high technologies.
The transition to the trajectory of sustainable development of such countries as the USA, Japan, the countries of the European Union, a number of countries in Southeast Asia was achieved through the expansion of innovation processes in the real sector of the economy. The state innovation policy of a country is a composition of measures of various directions and has significant national specifics (Table 6.2).
Table 6.2
The main directions of state innovation policy in the world1

1 See: Zverev A.V. Formation of the National Innovation System: World Experience and Russian Perspectives. Abstract of the dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Economics. M., 2009. S. 26.

The end of the table. 6.2

Direction innovative politicians	Specificity	Countries
Stimulation of innovative cooperation between business and science (universities) within the country	Stimulating the symmetrical convergence of universities and corporations	USA, Finland
	Large public investments in science and innovation and attraction of national private capital	Israel, Finland
	Stimulation of innovative activity of the private sector with the attraction of foreign capital in the innovation sphere	UK, Ireland, China, Korea, Malaysia, India, Israel
	Stimulating the innovation initiative of the scientific sector	Germany, Japan, New Zealand, Denmark
Integration into international innovation networks	Comprehensive integration	Finland, Israel, Netherlands, China
	Technological Specialization	Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, India
Establishment of internal innovation networks	Creation of special conditions for the formation of links in the innovation sphere	USA, Norway, Ireland
	Stimulating the initiative of national regions	France, Germany, Finland
Formation of the national innovation system	Restructuring the public sector of science	Bulgaria, Poland, Lithuania
	Initiation of the integration of science and education	Latvia, Estonia, Czech Republic
	Involvement of small and medium-sized businesses in the innovation sphere	Romania, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Latvia, Estonia, Turkey, Chile
	Determination of priority export directions in the field of high technologies	Czech Republic, Romania, Chile, Turkey

In the world, innovative activity is stimulated by various benefits and preferences, which are absolutely necessary for the development of science-intensive products. They act flexibly, selectively in the form of deferrals, tax credits, accelerated depreciation (Table 6.3).
Table 6.3
Tax incentives for R&D in developed countries1

A study of world experience shows that:
a) the key factor in increasing the country's competitiveness, developing it towards an effective national innovation system (NIS) is the state innovation policy aimed at creating a favorable economic climate for the implementation of innovation processes (including at the regional level) and being a link between the academic science and production;
b) fundamentally important in the formation of innovation policy is the choice of the main vector of its movement.
World practice allows us to distinguish two main models of state innovation policy: a model of innovation policy focused on the implementation of scientific and technical programs and projects of national importance. The main goal of the model is to encourage the development of innovative areas of priority for the country; a model of innovation policy focused on the dissemination of scientific and technical knowledge. The main goal of such a policy is the development of new technologies, the expansion of the technological capabilities of industries and sectors of the economy. Most often, this concerns the improvement of the innovation infrastructure, the system of education and training.
Depending on the ongoing innovation policy, the countries of the world are divided into three groups. Countries focused on leadership in science in the implementation of large-scale targeted projects covering all stages of the innovation cycle, as a rule, with a significant share of scientific and innovative potential in the military sphere (USA, Great Britain, France); Countries focused on creating a favorable innovation environment, with the possibility of optimizing the entire economy (Germany, Sweden, Switzerland); Countries that stimulate innovation by developing an innovative infrastructure, ensuring susceptibility to the achievements of world scientific and technological progress, and coordinating the actions of various sectors in the field of science and technology (Japan, South Korea).
The formation of the NIS occurs individually for each country and is determined by the socio-economic relations that have developed in it, its national characteristics. For example, in Finland, emphasis was placed on economic diversification; in France, to create small technology firms; in the USA - to support the restructuring of the national economy. However, in each particular case, individual approaches and tools that have proven their effectiveness in other countries can be used.
Analysis of the experience of developing innovative processes in developed and developing countries allows you to identify key patterns in the creation and development of NIS in these countries: the growth of integration of science, education, production and the market, which leads to an increase in the volume and intensity of internal relationships and interaction between elements of the NIS; the purpose of the NIS is to ensure the dynamic development of the country by increasing the innovative activity of the country's economic entities; the high efficiency of the NIS of a number of countries is due to various factors, among which the most significant is the established infrastructure of the NIS; the innovative development of the country is not necessarily based on its own scientific, technical and innovative base; at the initial stages of the formation of the NIS, it is possible to acquire, copy and “assimilate” foreign developments (the example of China and Japan); significant strengthening of the innovative orientation of investments; increasing the role of regions and individual territorial interregional complexes in the development of the NIS.