Coordination of Regional Innovation Processes to Ensure the Technological Competitiveness of Russia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17059/ekon.reg.2024-1-5Keywords:
regional innovation process, mission-oriented innovation policy (innovation policy 3.0), regional innovation ecosystem, innovation management, technological competitiveness, innovation missionAbstract
Although Russia has approximately 200 tools to support science and innovation, the observed innovative activity of Russian organisations of 12 % is 4-6 times lower than that of most technologically developed countries. Under international sanctions, it is necessary to enhance the innovative component of the country’s technological competitiveness. The study hypothesises that improvement of innovation processes management in Russian regions requires a transition to a holistic innovation policy aimed at harmonising regional science, technology and production to ensure technological sovereignty. The article refines the methodology and mechanisms of the Russian innovation policy. The author’s approach to the implementation of the mission-oriented innovation policy considering the specificity of Russian regions is described. The use of a layered innovation strategy is substantiated. Innovative activity should first be stimulated in regions with the highest development of science and technology industries; then, other regions should be gradually involved in innovation processes. The following indicators are considered while selecting regions: the number of R&D employees, shipping volume of high – and medium-tech enterprises, number of university students, fiscal capacity. Data of the Federal State Statistics Service are analysed. The rank method is used for a preliminary selection of 10 regions most suitable for implementing the developed approach (Moscow, St. Petersburg, the Republic of Tatarstan, Nizhny Novgorod, Sverdlovsk oblasts, etc.). The study presents innovation missions for these regions aimed to overcome the technological gap and reduce import dependence (innovative import substitution, circular economy, etc.). The findings can be used to improve innovation policy at the federal and regional levels. Future studies should focus on establishing theoretical and methodological foundations of a unified scientific and technological space in Russia.
References
Aganbegyan, A. G. (2022). The main economic challenges facing Russia. Nauchnye trudy Volnogo ekonomicheskogo obshchestva Rossii [Scientific works of the Free Economic Society of Russia], 238 (6), 88–101. https://doi.org/10.38197/2072-2060-2022-238-6-88-101 (In Russ.)
Aghion, P., & Howitt, P. (2005). Growth with quality-improving innovations: An integrated framework. In: P. Agion, S. N. Durlauf (Eds.), Handbook of Economic Growth (pp. 67–110). Amsterdam: North Holland, 1A.
Alkhazaleh, R., Mykoniatis, K., & Alahmer, A. (2022). The Success of Technology Transfer in the Industry 4.0 Era: A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 8 (4), 202. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8040202
Auzan, A. A., Bakhtigaraeva, A. I., & Bryzgalin, V. A. (2022). Development of Russia’s creative economy in the context of modern challenges. Zhurnal Novoy Ekonomicheskoy Assotsiatsii [Journal of the New Economic Association], 2 (54), 213–220. https://doi.org/10.31737/2221-2264-2022-54-2-12 (In Russ.)
Casula, M. (2022). Designing and implementing policies for transformative change in Europe: ideas, policy mixes, actors. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 35 (4), 507–513. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2022.2138411
Dosi, G., Lamperti, F., Mazzucato, M., Napoletano, M., & Roventini, A. (2023). Mission-oriented policies and the “Entrepreneurial State” at work: An agent-based exploration. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 151 (2), 104650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jedc.2023.104650
Edquist, C. (2019). Towards a holistic innovation policy: Can the Swedish National Innovation Council (NIC) be a role model? Research Policy, 48 (4), 869–879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.008
Freeman С. (2004). Technological infrastructure and international competitiveness. Industrial and Corporate Change, 13 (3), 541–569.
Gherhes, C., Yu, Z., Vorley, T., & Xue, L. (2023). Technological trajectories as an outcome of the structure-agency interplay at the national level: Insights from emerging varieties of AI. World Development, 168 , 106252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2023.106252
Glazyev, S. Yu. (2020). On the creation of systems for strategic planning and management of scientific and technical development. Innovatsii [Innovacii [Innovations], 2 , 14–23. (In Russ.)
Golova, I. M. (2022). Scientific and Technological Capacity of Regions as the Foundation for Technological Independence of the Russian Federation. Ekonomika regiona [Economy of regions], 18 (4), 1062–1074. https://doi.org/10.17059/ekon.reg.2022-4-7 (In Russ.)
Innovatsionnoe importozameshchenie kak drayver ekonomicheskoy bezopasnosti regiona [Innovative import substitution as a driver of economic security of the region] . (2022). Ekaterinburg, Russia: Institute of Economics, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 248. (In Russ.)
Larrue, P. (2021). The design and implementation of mission-oriented innovation policies: A new systemic policy approach to address societal challenges . OECD science, technology and industry policy papers, 100, 98. https://www.oecd.org/sti/inno/the-design-and-implementation-of-mission-oriented-innovation-policies-3f6c76a4-en.htm
Lenchuk, E. B. (2022). Science and technology development as a strategic national priority of Russia. Ekonomicheskoe vozrozhdenie Rossii [Economic revival of Russia], 1 , 58–65. https://doi.org/10.37930/1990-9780-2022-1-71-58-65 (In Russ.)
Mazzucato, M. (2018). Mission-oriented innovation policies: challenges and opportunities. Industrial and Corporate Change, 27 (5), 803–815. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dty034
Mercier-Laurent, E. (2011). Innovation Ecosystems . New York: John Wiley & Sons Limited, 246.
Nelson, R. R. & Winter, S. G. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change . Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 452.
Nikitskaya, E. (2018). Concepts and practice of implementing the potential opportunities of innovative growth in Russia at the national and regional levels. Federalizm [Federalism], 4 , 5–23. (In Russ.)
Perez, C. (2010). Technological revolutions and techno-economic paradigms. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34 (1), 185–202. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bep051
Porter, M. E. (2001). Regions and the New Economics of Competition. In: A. J. Scott (Ed.), Global City-Regions. Trends, Theory, Policy (pp. 139–157). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schot, J., & Steinmueller, W. (2018). Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Research Policy, 47 (9), 1554–1567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.011
Schumpeter, J. A. (1939). Business cycles. A Theoretical, Historical and Statistical Analysis of the Capitalist Process . New York Toronto London: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 461.
Solow, R. M. (1957). Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 39 (3), 312–320.
Sukhovey, A. F. (2016). Main trends of development theory of innovation abroad and in Russia. Zhurnal ekonomicheskoy teorii [Russian Journal of Economic Theory], 4 , 27–37. (In Russ.)
Sukhovey, A. F., & Golova, I. M. (2019). Innovatsionnaya sostavlyayushchaya sotsialno-ekonomicheskogo razvitiya regiona [Innovative component of the socio-economic development of the region] . Ekaterinburg, Russia: Institute of Economics, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 214. (In Russ.)
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Irina M. Golova
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
