Industrial Policy as a Means of Raising the Level of Russia's International Competitiveness in the Conditions of Cyclic Economic Development Professor, Doctor of Economics Gradov Alexander Pavlovich Department of "National Economics" SPbSPU

Chronology of economic cycles in the USA Date of the beginning of the crisis (32 crises occurred in the USA in 144 years) Duration of the cycle (from the beginning of the previous one to the beginning of the current crisis), months. Crisis start date Cycle duration (from the beginning of the previous to the beginning of the current crisis), months June 1857-January October May April October June August October May March February March November July July January August December April June December September November March January January July January 191336 July August March

Comparative dynamics of real growth (decrease) in the volume of gross domestic product, as a percentage of previous period(Country 2005 2006 2007 2008 Q3 2009 in % to Q3 2008 Russia 6.47.78.15.6-8.9 Brazil 3.13.95.65.1-1.2 Germany 0.83.02.51, 3-4.8 India 9.29.89.47.36.1 Italy 0.62.01.6-1.0-4.6 Canada3.02.92.50.4-4.0 China 10.411.713.09 .07.7 England2.22.92.60.7-5.2

The decline in production of important types of products for the period 2009/2008. (The output of products that are strategically important for increasing the level of competitiveness of the NE of the Russian Federation for the period 2009/2008 amounted to: steam turbines - 66.8%, machine tools - 36.6%, wheeled tractors - 55.5%, trucks - 35 .7%, passenger cars - 40.6%, buses - 53.4%... But, the production of vodka and alcoholic beverages amounted to only - 92.7%, beer - 95.2%. It was these “essential” goods that suffered from the recession.

Dynamics of the MICEX index in years.

The economic mechanism of cyclicity. "Positive spiral" (growth phase) Reduction of unemployment, income growth Excessive aggregate demand Intensification of credit policy of banks Improvement financial condition economic agents Growth of production in basic sectors Growth of stock markets, formation of “financial bubbles” Growth of demand for material and intangible assets

Competitiveness of the National Economy of the Russian Federation (1) According to the IDM methodology (Switzerland), the economy of each country is assessed according to four main indicators: infrastructure, government efficiency, business efficiency and macroeconomic indicators. Infrastructure: basic infrastructure, technological infrastructure, scientific infrastructure, health and environment, education. Government Effectiveness: Public Policy, Tax System, Institutional Framework, Regulatory Framework entrepreneurial activity, social base. Macroeconomic indicators: international trade, foreign investment, market openness, prices. Business performance: productivity, labor market, finance, management, scale. In 2009, Russia's rating determined by this method was 52,770, which corresponds to forty-ninth place out of 49 countries.

Competitiveness of the national economy of the Russian Federation (2) According to RBC daily on September 10, 2010, Russia retained 63rd place in the global competitiveness rating of the World Economic Forum (WEF) - between Turkey and Mexico. “In the ranking of key problems for business development in Russia,” the WEF report says, “no significant changes have occurred: as in the past year, business named corruption as the main barrier, and the problem of access to financing is in second place.” The deterioration of the situation is observed in those sectors that the authorities call priority. Thus, in terms of company spending on R&D - an indicator characterizing the degree of innovativeness of products - the country moved from 46th to 50th place, and in terms of the activity of state purchases of high-tech goods - from 69th to 82nd place. In terms of the level of competition in 2010, Russia was in 115th place (in 2009 - in 106th), in terms of the number of procedures required to open a new business - in 88th (in 2009 - at 60th), in terms of the time required to open an enterprise, at 93rd (in 2009), in terms of the height of trade barriers - at 133rd (in 2009).

Integral quantitative indicator for assessing the level of international competitiveness of the country Marginal (marginal) propensity to import S= M / R, where M is an additional increase (increase) in imports with an increase in national income by one aggregate monetary unit; R is the increase in national income per one aggregate monetary unit. For the period of the value of S for the Russian Federation increased by 3.7 times, which indicates a low level of competitiveness of the national economy of the Russian Federation, due to the low level of its diversification. This increases the dependence of the Russian Federation on imports and negatively affects the level of its economic security.

The global goal of industrial policy The global goal of industrial policy is to increase the level of Russia's international competitiveness. As quantified indicators of the strategic goals of industrial policy, one should take a decrease in the marginal propensity to import and an increase in the international competitiveness rating of the Russian Federation. The state industrial policy should be differentiated by regions. The problem of forming industrial policy is of particular importance for industrially developed regions and subjects of the Russian Federation, whose share in the GDP of the Russian Federation is decisive. An analysis of the contribution of individual regions to the GDP of the Russian Federation showed that the contribution of only fourteen such regions (excluding regions with a predominance of the oil and gas industry) in 2008 amounted to 54.2% of the GDP of the Russian Federation. Question: What industries. in your opinion, should they become the primary objects of modern industrial policy both at the federal and regional levels in order to realize its global goal? The global goal of industrial policy is to increase the level of Russia's international competitiveness. As quantified indicators of the strategic goals of industrial policy, one should take a decrease in the marginal propensity to import and an increase in the international competitiveness rating of the Russian Federation. The state industrial policy should be differentiated by regions. The problem of forming industrial policy is of particular importance for industrially developed regions and subjects of the Russian Federation, whose share in the GDP of the Russian Federation is decisive. An analysis of the contribution of individual regions to the GDP of the Russian Federation showed that the contribution of only fourteen such regions (excluding regions with a predominance of the oil and gas industry) in 2008 amounted to 54.2% of the GDP of the Russian Federation.

Matrix of federal industrial policy in different phases business cycle(1) RF NE Sectors RF Industrial Policy Objectives RF Industrial Policy Directions (IP) by Economic Cycle Phases Recession Rise Potentially Competitive Key Industries RF NE Achievement high level international competitiveness NE RF Import-substituting PP in industries related to industries high technology(including nanotechnology), aerospace shipbuilding, electrical industry, national security industry, Funding sources: government subsidies; internal and external government borrowing; credit lines commercial banks; attraction of direct foreign and domestic investors; Kinds tax policy: discretionary tax policy based on fiscal expansion for potentially competitive industries NE RF Export-oriented PP in high-tech, aerospace, national security, electrical engineering, software foreign investment; issue of state valuable papers and securities of strategic corporations; government subsidies; long-term loans from commercial banks Types of tax policy; discretionary tax policy based on fiscal restriction for industries not participating in the implementation of the PP, and gradually increasing fiscal expansion for potentially internationally competitive industries of the RF NE

Matrix of federal industrial policy in different phases of the economic cycle (2) Related and supporting industries that provide opportunities for increasing the level of international competitiveness of key industrial sectors NE RF Creation of conditions for achieving a high level of international competitiveness and key industries Industries NE RF Import-oriented software in industries related to mechanical engineering, road construction, communications, housing construction, agriculture, extraction and processing of natural resources. Funding sources: part of the natural rent, consolidated in the state budget; credit lines of commercial banks; attraction of direct domestic and foreign investors; Types of tax policy: discretionary tax policy based on fiscal expansion for industries that intensively create favorable conditions for increasing the level of international competitiveness NE RF financing: issue of government securities and securities of strategic corporations; part of the natural rent consolidated in the state budget; Types of tax policy: discretionary tax policy based on fiscal restriction for industries that do not participate in the implementation of the PP, and a gradual increase in fiscal expansion in industries that intensively create favorable conditions for the development of industries that are potentially competitive on international markets, the RF NE

Matrix of federal industrial policy in different phases of the economic cycle (3) Basic industries NE RF - donors of primary resources Provision of natural, including energy, resources for the process of increasing the level of international competitiveness NE RF - energy resources to implement the objectives of the industrial policy of the RF NE Sources of financing: income from the export of fuel and energy resources; natural rent; government subsidies; Types of tax policy: discretionary tax policy based on fiscal expansion. Domestic and export-oriented PP that ensures the smooth functioning of the RF NE and the fulfillment of the gradually decreasing obligations of the Russian Federation under interstate contracts for the supply of fuel and energy resources Sources of financing: income from the sale of fuel and energy resources in the external and internal markets; Types of tax policy: discretionary tax policy based on the gradual strengthening of fiscal restrictions.

Management levels Objects of taxation Economic cycle phases Recession Federal level Economic agents Fiscal expansion for economic agents conducting innovative R&D and contributing to the revival of the manufacturing industry of the Russian Federation Fiscal restriction for large, medium and small businesses that are not involved in the implementation of innovative R&D and the revival of the manufacturing industry of the Russian Federation Orientation businesses Fiscal expansion into import-substituting businesses through preferential loans, subsidies, government guarantees and flexible antimonopoly policy Fiscal restriction for import-oriented businesses. Fiscal expansion for import-substituting business Categories of investors Fiscal expansion for strategic domestic and foreign investors contributing to innovative development real sector of the national economy Fiscal restriction for domestic and foreign investors not involved in the implementation of the state innovation strategy, Regional level Agents and divisions of the regional economy tax holidays for small businesses in the field of R&D, which ensures an increase in the competitiveness of the regional economy Fiscal expansion for potentially competitive industries and agriculture of the regional economy Sectors of the regional economy and social sphere Fiscal expansion to increase the level of competitiveness of the educational and medical complexes of the region Fiscal restriction in monopolized sectors of the real sector of the regional economy Competitive regional environment Fiscal expansion for investors involved in the implementation of a competitive industrial policy Fiscal restriction into monopolized markets for goods and services for industrial and individual use. Tax Policy Matrix at the Federal and Regional Levels

CONCLUSION The cyclical development of the economy is an objective pattern that no “political will” can overcome. The "invisible hand of the market" is unable to prevent negative consequences cyclical development of the economy. In a cyclical environment, state regulation of financial and economic activity, by adapting the country's institutional system to the parameters of a particular phase of the economic cycle. main direction state regulation economic activity, both in the phase of recession and in the phase of recovery, is to maintain a high level of international competitiveness of the country. To maintain competitiveness, the state must pursue an industrial policy adapted to the conditions that arise in different phases of the economic cycle, the main goal of which is to create conditions for increasing the country's international competitiveness rating and reducing its dependence on the world economic system.

Introduction

Industrial policy and competition policy have a common goal - to ensure sustainable economic growth and improve the welfare of the population, based on the assumption that the state seeks to maximize public utility. The difference between industrial and competition policy lies in the means used to accelerate the pace and increase resilience economic development. The main method of implementing industrial policy is to provide a limited number of agents of the national economy with additional resources that can be used for investment. From this point of view, a set of measures aimed at withdrawing part of the rental income from the extractive industries through taxation and distributing it through the budget to other sectors of the economy based on one or another criterion.

IN modern conditions An important factor influencing the relationship between competition and industrial policy in Russia is the reform of technical regulation, which will change the entire system of establishing mandatory requirements for manufactured products and production processes, confirming compliance, as well as liability for violation of mandatory requirements. On the one hand, the formation technical regulations serves as the most important condition for reducing uncertainty for all stakeholders (especially consumers and producers) and, accordingly, a factor in saving on transaction costs. On the other hand, the emergence of technical regulations may have a significant impact (including a negative one) on the conditions of competition in the relevant product markets.

The work is based on the achievements of economic theory and practice of world civilization. It reveals the role and features of the antimonopoly policy of the state. Therefore, this topic can be considered very relevant today.

The purpose is to review the state's antitrust policy.

The goal allowed us to formulate the tasks that were solved in this work:

1) Consider industrial policy policy to promote competition

2) Identify conflicts between industrial policy and competition policy

industrial policy

Industrial policy is defined as a set of administrative, financial and economic measures aimed at ensuring a new quality of the country's economic growth by increasing innovative activity, efficiency and competitiveness of production in order to expand the share of domestic companies in the domestic and world markets in order to improve the welfare of citizens.

The actualization of industrial policy and the urgent need for its early development and practical implementation are due to the following circumstances:

The technological potential of the country is rapidly being destroyed;

Technological lag behind advanced countries for last years becomes general;

Technological backwardness, which has reached a critical limit, threatens to lose the very ability to create competitive science-intensive products;

Only a quarter of all technologies correspond to the world level, many of which are in no way converted into competitive advantages at the stage of industrial production.

World experience shows that the main principles for the development and implementation of industrial policy that ensure the increase of national competitiveness in the main areas of socio-economic development modern societies and states are:

Formation of industrial policy as the most important component of the national strategy with active equal participation in its development and implementation of the state, business, scientific and public organizations;

Transition from the established sectoral industrial policy to the policy of concentrating national efforts and state support for competitive companies;

Change of priorities in the choice of objects of industrial policy in accordance with the global trend, the increasing importance of high-tech industries with high added value while reducing the role of traditional resource-intensive industries;

Creation of conditions for the transition to a knowledge-intensive economy with the decisive role of the production, distribution and use of knowledge and information as the main factors of sustainable economic growth.

Modern economic theories distinguish two basic concepts of state industrial policy:

Tough state industrial policy with an unconditional predominance of methods of direct budget subsidies for industries or individual ambitious projects based on strong-willed, administrative levers; this model was used, as a rule, in the early stages of industrial development;

Modern national industrial policy with an absolute predominance of methods of indirect (financial and economic) stimulation of the production of competitive products and services.

The system-forming goal of industrial policy in the context of Russia's entry into the world market space is to increase national competitiveness (i.e., the ability to produce and consume goods and services in a competitive environment with other countries), comply with international standards and expand the share of domestic companies in the domestic and world markets as the main source of improving the welfare of the country's citizens with the continuous growth of their living standards.

The main task of the state in this area is to create complete system ensuring the development of science-intensive production in Russia. This is not about supporting industries or sub-sectors according to the canons of a planned economy, but about supporting individual industries and technologies that determine the possibilities of technological breakthroughs and are significant for the world economy.

Based on these prerequisites, the main objectives of industrial policy can be formulated as follows:

Stimulation of scientific and technological progress;

Carrying out a structural reform of the scientific and industrial sphere;

Creation of institutional foundations and infrastructure of the knowledge economy, ensuring the practical development of scientific achievements;

Formation of incentives for investing in new knowledge and new technologies;

Accumulation, development and effective use of intellectual (human and structural) capital of the new economy;

Direction of investment flows to intellectual capital;

Priority development of the education sector;

Redistribution of part of the income of traditional sectors of the economy to solve the problems of scientific and technological progress;

Informatization of society and the implementation of management reform on this basis.

export-oriented model. The essence of the export-oriented model of industrial policy is the full encouragement of industries focused on the export of their products. The main incentive measures are aimed at developing and supporting competitive export industries. The priority task is the production of competitive products and their entry into the international market. Important advantages of this model are the inclusion of the country in the world economy and access to world resources and technologies; development of strong competitive sectors of the economy, which provide a multiplier effect of the development of other, “domestic” sectors and are the main supplier of funds to the budget; attraction of foreign exchange funds to the country and their investment in the development of production and services of the national economy.

Successful examples of the implementation of an export-oriented model of industrial policy can serve as countries such as Japan, South Korea, Chile, "Asian tigers" (Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore), and more recently China.

At the same time, there are negative examples - Venezuela, Mexico.

The import substitution model is a strategy for providing the domestic market based on the development of national production. Import substitution involves the implementation of a protectionist policy and the maintenance of a firm exchange rate of the national currency (thus preventing inflation). The import-substituting model helps to improve the structure of the balance of payments, normalize domestic demand, provide employment, develop machine-building production, and scientific potential.

This situation was typical for the economy of the USSR, North Korea. Also, under the influence of various objective economic, geopolitical and institutional factors, carried out after the collapse of the USSR and before today Russia's industrial policy is clearly import-substituting.

Innovative activity includes both all stages of scientific and technical activity, as well as production, which ensures the development and implementation of innovations, and activities that create conditions for the further functioning of innovations (i.e., intermediary activity). The innovative model is based on the process of the country's economic development both in the domestic and foreign markets, based on the latest trends in technological and social development using high-tech and capital-intensive production.

The innovative model helps to maintain the scientific and technical potential of the country, and, consequently, its competitiveness in the international arena; stimulates the development of educational institutions and provides the economy with highly educated and qualified personnel; contributes to the creation of jobs within the country and ensures domestic demand; maintains a stable and high exchange rate of the national currency and the well-being of the population; focuses on the development of a machine-processing complex, machine-tool and instrument making with a high added value of manufactured products.

Subject: "Institutional Economics"

Topic: "State industrial policy"

Student group X - M (s) - 31 V.V. Severova

Teacher Danilchik T.L.

Khabarovsk 2014

Introduction

1. Competitiveness

2. Improving market mechanisms

3. Formation of the technological base

4. Carrot and stick for investment

Conclusion

Literature

Introduction

By the nature of the general orientation of state influence on the country's industry, industrial policy. They are classified as protective, focused on maintaining the existing industrial structure, maintaining employment, protecting national firms from foreign competition, adaptive, aimed at adapting the country's industrial structure to the changes in the structure of demand and changing conditions of competition in the world market, and proactive, when the state actively influences on the development of the country's industry, based on his vision of the desired image of its structure in a more or less long term.

Industrial policy (hereinafter referred to as PP) as one of the main functions of the state in the general view is a strategy focused on the formation and implementation of industrial development goals through various economic instruments. The term "industrial policy" came to Russia in the early 1990s. to denote the regulatory role of the state in the industrial and technological development of the country. In the era of the administrative-planned economy in the USSR, there was no need for such a term, because the entire economic system essentially meant PP. There was no alternative to the state system for making decisions on investment by private business, the entire strategy for the economic development of industries and inter-industry complexes was determined centrally from a single economic center. In the representation system market economy it was a super-industrial policy with its achievements, shortcomings and even failures. The need to designate the role of the state in the development and implementation of a strategy for the long-term development of priority sectors in the conditions of the dominance of market relations arose due to the obvious "market failures" in the field of projects that are not designed for short-term profit. Among the directions of the state industrial policy, we will consider the main ones, namely:

the influence of the state on the competitiveness of industrial production;

state activities to improve the efficiency of market mechanisms;

the impact of the state on the sectoral structure of production;

opportunities of the state to stimulate the investment process.

1. Competitiveness

The need for the state to increase the competitiveness of industrial production is dictated by such fundamental differences of the modern developed market economy as the increasing intellectualization of industrial production, the strengthening of the role of innovation and the transnationalization of industrial firms.

As a result, the competitiveness of the country's industry increasingly depends on such factors as the quality of labor resources, the strength of ties between industrial firms, higher educational institutions and research institutes, the ability to creatively master foreign technologies, the speed of dissemination of technological and other innovations in industry; the capacity of the domestic market and the level of requirements of domestic consumers of industrial products to its quality characteristics, the presence of clusters of technologically connected and geographically close enterprises that produce products that are in demand in foreign markets. The role of the state, which not only finances the bulk of general education educational institutions and universities, but also to a large extent determines the attitude of society to education and the prestige of the profession of a scientist and teacher, in creating an education system that meets the requirements of modern industrial production, is very significant. It is obvious that the proactive state industrial policy should be supported by a purposeful policy in the field of education. For countries with transition economy the most priority areas include a sharp increase in the training of specialists in the field of management, marketing and commercial law. Despite the importance of financial support by the state of fundamental science and the most priority programs of applied scientific research The organizational activity of the state in the following areas can play a very large positive role. First, the creation of state structures focused on identifying potential industrial consumers of knowledge accumulated by state research institutes and universities. Secondly, government coordination of R&D programs involving industrial enterprises and university laboratories, as well as government research organizations. An important factor in maintaining the competitiveness of the country's industry is the presence of conditions conducive to the rapid spread of technological and other innovations in it. Since these conditions are determined primarily by the dynamics of the investment process, the activities of the state in this regard are implemented in the field of macroeconomic policy, the success of which depends on the ability to create a favorable investment climate by means of monetary and fiscal policy. Moreover, due to the lack of financial resources for small innovative firms, it often serves as an insurmountable barrier at the stage of introducing scientific and technical knowledge into new, economically viable technological processes and types of products, the state should help expand the possibilities of financing innovative businesses. The state has the opportunity to exert a significant influence on such conditions for the competitiveness of the country's industry as the presence of a capacious domestic market and the stringent requirements of domestic consumers of industrial products for its quality characteristics. All developed countries of the market economy, in order to maintain the competitiveness of their industry, stimulate the demand for high-tech products through public procurement in industries owned by the state or under strict state regulation (electricity, primarily nuclear, telecommunications, aviation and rail transport), as well as to provide military the needs of the country. There is widespread discrimination foreign companies- manufacturers of similar products.

. Improving Market Mechanisms

The activities of the state to improve the efficiency of market mechanisms and mitigate their inherent imperfections is the second important component of modern industrial policy. The areas in which the imperfections of market mechanisms of coordination are manifested are different: These are, firstly, the production public goods and services (eg scientific research, health services, arms production, etc.). It is believed that in the production of such goods there is a fundamental difference between the parameters of efficiency on the basis of which private firms operate, and the efficiency from the point of view of society as a whole. Secondly, imperfections in the market mechanism are associated with the consequences of the interdependence and complementarity of investments, manifested in the form of "externalities", in particular, when part of the profit from a particular investment can be "grabbed" by other investors associated with it. Third, competition through innovation is unlikely to satisfy the principles of perfect competition. "Competition through new products and processes," the paper states. American economists, - is imperfect both in essence and in results. Without the lure of higher returns, there would be no incentive to innovate." Since the development of industry is becoming more and more innovative, and innovative competition, in fact, is imperfect, with huge external effects, a strong monopoly element, the possibilities for developing industrial production on the basis of exclusively market fourth, the market economy has complex problems that make it difficult to allocate resources with an emphasis on the long term.

In a market economy, a comprehensive Information Support industrial firms is a necessary condition for their survival and efficient operation. A huge amount of work on the collection and publication of information of an economic, scientific, technical, demographic and similar nature, widely used by industrial firms in making investment and other decisions, is carried out in the countries of a developed market economy by state departments, although they, of course, are not the only source of information used. information firms.

It should be emphasized that government departments distribute the information they collect without any restrictions and at affordable prices. Much attention is paid to the use of information collected by the state to develop a system of indicators used to analyze the state of the general economic situation and its short-term forecasting. A very important aspect of the information activity of the state in the countries of the market economy is the development of medium- and long-term forecasts for the development of the economy, including industry, countries and world markets for the most important industrial goods.

. Formation of the technological base

It is also possible to influence the achievement of dynamic competitive advantages of the state industrial policy by influencing the technologies used in the country's industry and, accordingly, its sectoral structure. The impact of the state on the technological structure of industrial production was most clearly manifested in the creation of state industrial enterprises and the nationalization of entire industries. At the same time, the historical experience of market economies does not provide grounds for unambiguous and unconditional assessments of the role of state entrepreneurship in the development of industrial production. If we assume that by means of public policy it is possible to increase the national income of the country at the expense of its competitors by stimulating technologies and industries that bring a higher "rent" than other technologies and industries bring, then, obviously, the existence of such an opportunity for a long time contradicts the conditions for the functioning of systems of competitive markets and industries with free cross-country and cross-sectoral overflow of capital.

The creation of state industrial companies is not the only and in modern conditions far from the most optimal tool for the state to influence the technological structure of the country's industry.

. Carrot and stick for investment

Another, no less important task of the macroeconomic policy of the state in relation to the problems of modernizing the country's industrial structure is the creation of favorable conditions for a dynamic investment process.

The following instruments of state influence on the dynamics of the investment process are actively used:

public investment, and not just in infrastructure;

tax incentives for investment;

containment of prices for equipment through preferential customs duties on its imports;

impact on interest rates and keeping them below the market level.

Very important role in financing investment programs bank credit plays the role, and the state actively influenced both the cost of the loan and the direction of its flows. The dominant role was played by internal sources (retained earnings and depreciation) and bank loans. Public financial institutions played an important role in financing investment programs in many dynamically developing countries. The influence of the state on price proportions in order to stimulate the investment process was not limited to the regulation of interest rates. Specialists World Bank indicate that in these countries, tax, tariff, and foreign exchange policies not only removed some of the investment risk from investing firms and moderately suppressed interest rates, but also controlled capital imports, and also maintained relatively low prices for investment goods. At the same time, the possibilities of using price disproportions created by state regulation in order to stimulate the investment process and the country's economic growth are significantly narrowing as its involvement in world economic relations intensifies. And about one more option for stimulating investment policy aimed at developing the real sector of the economy - the use of tax system. There are two most important directions of the state tax policy that can have a significant impact on the development of the country's industry.

First, by influencing through taxes on the level of savings of the population, depreciation funds of firms and their retained earnings, i.e. on the value of potential sources of financing for the investment programs of firms, the state is able to influence the most important macroeconomic proportions, in particular, the distribution of national income between accumulation and consumption.

Second, using targeted tax incentives, as well as legislation, in terms of depreciation, the state is able to influence the ratio between firms' investments in the active and passive part of fixed assets, the rate of reproduction of fixed capital in the country's industry, stimulate the investment activities of firms in priority areas from the point of view of the state, influence the regional location of industrial investment.

5. Problems of state support for industry in Russia

Obviously, if the main goal of the economic reform being carried out in Russia is the creation of a modern market economy, then the Russian state is obliged to fulfill the functions listed above, which are characteristic of all market economy countries. At the same time, the peculiarities of the situation that has developed to date in the economy of our country require that the state not be limited only to these functions.

Overcoming negative trends in Russian industrial production and creating the prerequisites for fundamental changes in its structure is impossible without a meaningful and purposeful state industrial policy, and in the most favorable version, this policy should serve as a tool for implementing a strategy based on public consensus industrial development countries. Such a strategy should be determined taking into account the uniqueness of the current situation in Russia. This uniqueness is due to a whole range of technological and socio-political factors.

In socio-political terms, the current situation in Russia is determined by a sharp differentiation of incomes between a small group of the population and its main mass. During the years of reforms in Russia, a middle class has not developed, in the absence of which it is impossible to create a market economy of mass consumption and an adequate stable political regime of a social democratic or liberal orientation.

Meanwhile, until now, the transformation of the Russian economy has been taking place in the absence of any meaningful strategy for the country's industrial development. In countries of democratic orientation, the definition of an industrial development strategy is not exclusively the prerogative of the central state authorities. In this case, the active participation of representatives of industrial business circles, trade unions, independent research organizations, and regional authorities is envisaged. At the same time, the central state structures, acting as a participant and coordinator in the development of the country's industrial development strategy, offer their assessments of the prospects for the development of the world economy and its individual regions (primarily those most closely related to the country's industry), world markets for important industrial goods, scientific and technical progress, the ecological situation, etc., formulate their ideas about the desirable directions of the country's industrial development.

For such work, certain organizational structures, in which there is a thorough discussion of problems related to the development of a strategy for the industrial development of the country, including problems of a sectoral and regional nature. The activities of such structures not only make it possible to get a more complete and clear idea of ​​the problems and prospects for the development of the country's industry, its most vulnerable places, potential sources of growth and competitive advantages, but also creates the prerequisites for the formation of public consensus regarding the vision of the country's future industry. Such consent is, in particular, an important condition for the rapid legislative registration of measures in the field of industrial policy. The function of a leader in the creation and coordination of the activities of these structures should be performed by an authoritative department of executive power, so the Japanese experience deserves the closest study and use.

We have to admit that at present there is no department in the executive branch of Russia capable of taking on the functions of initiator and coordinator of the development of the country's industrial development strategy in terms of its intellectual potential and authority. The development of a public consensus on the vision of the future of Russia is also hampered by the blurring of the values ​​of the main part of the country's population due to the collapse of the totalitarian atheistic state and the negative consequences of the current reforms for the majority of the country's population. Realizing that the development of a strategy for the industrial development of the country and an adequate state industrial policy requires colossal collective efforts, we will note only some of the contours of such a strategy and policy. The country's industrial development strategy presupposes the definition of the main goals in a more or less long term, the main obstacles to the realization of these goals and the means to overcome these obstacles and achieve the goals set. The most important strategic goals for the development of Russian industry should, apparently, include the preservation and improvement of the main elements of the life support infrastructure, improving the quality of life (physical and mental health of the nation, ecology, education and housing); maintaining a sufficient level of the country's defense capability.

The main obstacles to the realization of these goals are the ongoing development of a deep and protracted general economic and industrial crisis, without any positive changes in the technological structure of industrial production, an ever-widening gap between the financial sector and the state of Russian industry, and a growing shortage of investment resources. Russia's state industrial policy should be focused on overcoming these obstacles and be proactive, based on a vision of a desirable image of the industrial structure in a more or less long-term perspective. As for the technological structure of Russian industry, it should be built on the basis of a thorough assessment of the existing scientific and technological potential, taking into account the main directions of world scientific and technological progress and a number of factors. To do this, it is necessary to determine: in which technologies, based on considerations of national security in its various aspects, its own production potential is needed and what level it should reach; in what technologies does Russia have a chance to achieve a breakthrough and increase its competitiveness; satisfaction of what needs is expedient due to the import of industrial products and technologies. Based on this, it is possible to determine the following areas of state activity in the framework of industrial policy. There is a need for active, coordinating activities of state departments in the field of technological forecasting and the development of a set of criteria on the basis of which priority technologies for Russian industry should be selected.

The state can contribute to increasing the technological potential of Russian industry, both by creating closed, poorly accessible to foreign competition systems of "scientific research and development - the production of science-intensive products in Russian companies- large-scale purchases of these products by the state , and by stimulating the inflow of foreign capital and technology by allowing foreign companies to manufacture high-tech products in the country and public procurement of these products. Most likely, both options should be combined, depending on the state of scientific and technological potential in specific areas of science and technology. State funding is needed for fundamental science and applied research for priority technologies. Despite the importance of financial support by the state of fundamental science and the most priority programs of applied scientific research, the organizational activity of the state in the following areas can play an important positive role: creation of state structures focused on identifying potential industrial consumers of knowledge accumulated by state research institutes and universities; coordinating activities of the state in conducting R & D, in which industrial enterprises and university laboratories, as well as state research organizations, participate.

Renovation of the technological structure of Russian industry is possible only under conditions of a dynamic investment process, which to a decisive extent depends on the tax, budgetary and monetary policy of the state. From this follows the need to reform the tax system with an emphasis on creating preferential conditions for savings and capital accumulation, as well as liberalization monetary policy and creation of conditions for additional emission in industrial investments. In this regard, it seems necessary to create state investment development banks, without which a quick exit from the deep investment crisis is hardly possible. A realistic assessment of the possibilities of the capital market as a source of financing for investment programs requires acknowledging that its role in Russia for many years to come is likely to be generally insignificant. Therefore, the state should focus primarily on creating conditions that stimulate own sources savings in industrial structures (depreciation policy is important in this respect), and providing these structures with long-term credit resources.

The critical situation in the Russian industry with non-payments dictates the need for an active state policy at the microeconomic level, including: - the allocation of large industrial enterprises and financial and industrial groups capable of playing the role of leaders due to their technological and managerial potential and financial condition; creation of conditions facilitating the absorption by leaders or their taking control of industrial enterprises that have the technological potential for development, but do not have the financial capabilities to implement it; the liquidation of industrial enterprises that are hopeless in all respects, with the simultaneous retraining of their personnel and in their employment.

Despite the importance of the state's active policy to create a competitive economic environment through privatization, demonopolization, support for small-scale industrial entrepreneurship, the state should promote the development of cooperation between both the main social groups and enterprises within industries and their complexes.

The development of social partnership at the level of "the state - industrial sectoral associations - trade unions" could help maintain macroeconomic stabilization through the implementation of one or another policy of regulating prices and incomes. With all the dangers that cartelization of industry is fraught with, the creation of industry associations of industrial enterprises such as cartels (on a temporary basis and with the development of clear criteria for the activities of firms belonging to cartels) could help stabilize industrial production and modernize its technological base. An important direction of the state industrial policy in the coming years should be to mitigate the negative social consequences caused by changes in the structure of industrial production. Obviously, this problem will be particularly acute in the coming years. To mitigate it, the state is obliged to implement a whole range of measures, including a broad program of public works (in particular, to modernize infrastructure), a program to retrain the workforce and increase its mobility, as well as to provide sufficient protection from excessive foreign competition of industries that are most important from the point of view of maintaining employment. Finally, it is necessary to substantially increase the efficiency of managing industrial enterprises that remain state-owned.

Conclusion

In recent years, the problem of state influence on the industrial development of the country has become more relevant. In this regard, the state industrial policy of Russia, at present, should become an integral part of the state economic policy (SEP), in many respects, ensuring the achievement of its goals. Therefore, the development and implementation of the GSP is the most important task of public administration. Determining the features of the formation and implementation mechanism of the state industrial policy is one of the most important theoretical, methodological and practical tasks of market transformations.

The degree of development of the problem. One of the reasons for the underestimation of the state industrial policy in the transition economy management system. is the weakness of the scientific study of the weight of the GSP for the Russian economy.

Summing up all of the above, we can conclude that on a common platform, the need for the implementation of the PP has risen and many doctrines compete with each other. All the considered concepts differ in the ways of implementation, in the methods of implementation, in the system of goals and values. The need for a coherent state industrial and economic strategy is obvious and relevant during all the years of radical economic reforms. Almost all sane and nationally oriented groups of society support the PP. Against the PP - only the top of the cosmopolitan capital in the largest domestic commodity companies and the ruling bureaucracy serving their interests. It is obvious that the absence of PP in the context of the rapid degradation of the industrial base and social conditions the life of the country is nonsense, explained by the unity and organization of its opponents while the disunity of its supporters. The main subject of PP is always the state represented by a set of institutions of economic power that set the "rules of the game" in industrial strategy and select winners and losers, i.e. partially replacing functions market competition that liberals are always so afraid of. In addition, the homegrown interpreters of the ideas of Hayek-Mises are so obviously tied to the interests of the energy and raw materials companies embedded in global market of this product that any talk about software is perceived by them completely "correctly", because in modern Russian conditions, this means the inevitable redistribution of income from transnational "raw materials" in favor of national "industrialists" with the help of the economic power of the state. Therefore, all that liberals demand from the state is the preservation and strengthening of the "competitive" regime in the economy, "forgetting" that energy and raw materials monopolies feel most at ease in the conditions of such "competition", cheaply buying up all the necessary resources within the country (including labor strength and state support in the form, for example, of the notorious mineral extraction tax, which created unprecedented opportunities for evading differential rent taxation) and selling expensive finished products both in the global and domestic markets. Super profits settle in offshore zones and Western banks.

PP issues are real political and economic issues of the theory and practice of reforms, because they affect the fundamental economic interests of the main sections of society. They address the underlying issues of the creation, distribution and appropriation of social wealth. And while the economic power is in the hands of "transnationals", the state will diligently bypass the issues of industrial strategy, replacing it with such "important" reforms as the monetization of benefits, the commercialization of science and education, the endless shake-up of the administrative apparatus, etc.

industrial policy market mechanism

Literature

1.Zevin L.Z. " Economic structures different levels in global processes: features of interaction. Scientific report by IMEPI RAS. - M: EPIKON, 2009, p.8-9.

2.Tatarkin A. Industrial policy as a basis for the systemic modernization of the Russian economy // Probl. theory and practice management. - 2011 - N 1. - P.8-21.

.Pilipenko I. Cluster policy in Russia // Society and Economics. - 2009 - N 8. - S.28-64.

.Zavadnikov V. Industrial policy in Russia / V. Zavadnikov, Yu. Kuznetsov // Ekon. policy. - 2011. - N 3. - P.5-17.

.Zeltyn A.S. State industrial policy in market economies // EKO. - 2012. - N 3. - S.42-60.

.Ivanov V.S. Rational management of the territory as a factor in the development of industrial policy // Microeconomics. - 2009. - N 5. - S.124-127.

.Abramov M. About industrial policy and tax regulation // Svobodnaya thought. - 2009. - N 1. - S.101-116.

.Abramov M.D. Industrial policy and tax regulation // EKO. - 2009. - N 1. - S.165-173.

Tutoring

Need help learning a topic?

Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Submit an application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

The state industrial policy is one of the most discussed concepts in the domestic economic literature. Discussions are being held both on the content of the concept of industrial policy, and on the directions of the implementation of industrial policy in Russia.

The term "industrial policy" entered the Russian economic literature in the early 1990s and was borrowed from Western economic literature, the original name is "industrial policy". The borrowing of the concept of industrial policy by disparate specialists has led to the fact that various interpretations of the content of industrial policy have appeared in the domestic literature.

In the domestic literature, along with the term "industrial policy", the term "structural policy" is also used, which has remained since the time of the state-planning concept, often these two terms are given a synonymous meaning. In Western literature, structural policy is understood as institutional transformations, such as privatization, reform of monopolies, promotion of small and medium-sized businesses, etc.

The evolution of views and the need for a unified terminology led to the following interpretation of industrial policy.

Industrial policy is defined as a set of government actions aimed at purposefully changing the structure of the economy by creating more favorable conditions for the development of certain (priority) sectors and industries.

Another definition of industrial policy was given by L.I. Abalkin.

Industrial policy is a system of measures aimed at progressive changes in the structure of industrial production in accordance with selected national goals and priorities. The central issue and subject of industrial policy is intersectoral proportions and structural shifts in industry, and not questions of the development of industry in general and, say, intra-sectoral competition.

Finally, the definition of industrial policy given by specialists of the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of the Russian Federation, industrial policy is a set of measures carried out by the state in order to increase the efficiency and competitiveness of domestic industry and form it. modern structure contributing to the achievement of these goals. Industrial policy is a necessary complement to structural policies aimed at increasing social welfare. When developing an industrial policy, it is important to determine the goals and priorities set on the basis of the strategic guidelines for the production and commercial activities of economic entities and the social activities of the state.

As follows from these definitions, the implementation of industrial policy implies the existence of clear state priorities in relation to the sectors of the national economy. The purpose of industrial policy is to change the existing sectoral structure national economy, increasing the share of priority sectors in the created national product.

Industrial policy pursues other goals than sectoral policy. If the sectoral policy aims to increase the national economic efficiency of the industry and is implemented mainly through short-term measures, then the industrial policy aims to increase the efficiency of the national economy as a whole, eliminating intersectoral problems and ensuring progressive changes in the structure of the production of a social product, which requires a long-term decision-making horizon.

Among the main instruments of industrial policy of the state are the following:

1) budget policy instruments: provision of various kinds of subsidies and loans from the state budget, implementation of the state investment policy in certain sectors of the economy in order to develop the production base, infrastructure facilities, form growth poles, etc.

2) tax policy instruments: the introduction of a different taxation regime depending on the industry, the provision of tax incentives in priority sectors, an accelerated depreciation procedure. The use of different tax regimes in different sectors and regions can have a significant stimulating function, changing the costs and sectoral profitability of production, which, in turn, affects the sectoral structure of investment in fixed assets, redirecting investments to priority sectors of the national economy and increasing their competitiveness.

3) monetary policy instruments aimed at regulating the level of monetization of the economy, the volume of savings and lending in the national economy, as well as the exchange rate of the national currency: discount rate, open market operations, required reserve ratio.

4) institutional policy instruments: improvement of property relations; stimulating the transition of enterprises to more effective forms business organizations; change of property relations privatization and nationalization; licensing; legislative formation and support of new market institutions, market infrastructure.

5) foreign economic policy instruments: export promotion (export loans and guarantees, customs and tax benefits, subsidies), import or export restrictions (customs tariffs, quotas, anti-dumping investigations, the establishment of technological and environmental regulations and standards), changes in trade duties, membership in international economic organizations and conclusion of customs unions.

6) investment policy instruments: creation of a favorable investment climate and assistance in attracting investments in those sectors, the development of which is a priority for the state;

7) training and retraining of specialists for priority industries.

Thus, the implementation of industrial policy involves significant state intervention in the functioning of the economic system. This raises the question of the justification for its implementation, especially within the currently dominant liberal market economy. economic concept(neoclassical theory) and evaluation of its effectiveness.

Within the framework of neoclassical theory, industrial policy is viewed as an unlawful intervention of the state in the economy, distorting the operation of market mechanisms and hindering the efficient (optimal) distribution of resources. According to this point of view, the state is not able to determine the true points of growth, therefore, any priorities of the state in relation to sectors and industries will lead to a decrease in overall economic efficiency.

In accordance with the liberal market concept, the following main arguments against the implementation of industrial policy can be made.

1. Industrial policy distorts market signals and, accordingly, leads to inefficient decisions of business entities at the micro level, which leads to more significant imbalances.

2. The ability to set government priorities in relation to the development of individual sectors can lead to lobbying and corruption, as a result of which inefficient sectors will receive priorities.

3. The state cannot accurately determine the priorities of industrial policy in the long term. The experience of most countries shows the ineffectiveness of industrial policy instruments in the long term.

4. The structure of the modern economy, characterized by the predominance of large diversified companies, reduces the ability to regulate individual industries and sectors.

The question arises as to what justifies government intervention in the natural development of the national economy.

Arguments in favor of industrial policy are.

1. The market is efficient only for relatively small deviations from the optimum. The elimination of major structural imbalances requires state intervention.

2. When making decisions, market entities are usually guided by short-term goals, which can lead to a deviation from the long-term optimum.

3. The operation of the market mechanism can lead to high social and political costs to society.

4. Emerging industries may be uncompetitive during their infancy due to unfavorable initial conditions.

Thus, the question arises of assessing the effectiveness of industrial policy. Under what conditions will it contribute to the improvement of social welfare, and under what conditions it will not.

The following main objectives of industrial policy can be cited:

1) ensuring national security and reducing dependence on external factors;

2) decision social problems and securing employment;

3) ensuring the competitive advantages of individual industries;

4) stimulation of investment activity in target industries by providing favorable conditions for functioning, especially in industries that give a large indirect effect on the development of the national economy; etc.

Industrial policy, as a rule, involves the creation of more favorable conditions for the development of priority sectors and curbing growth in some other sectors of the national economy.

Therefore, as a criterion for evaluating the effectiveness of industrial policy, one can use the net gain of the national economy from accelerating the development of some industries and slowing down the development of others. However, there are serious methodological difficulties associated with the measurement of this indicator.

Thus, we can conclude that the implementation of industrial policy is justified in the context of a serious structural imbalance in the economy, which cannot be eliminated only under the influence of the market mechanism, which necessitates government intervention.

The following levels of industrial policy can be distinguished:

1. The level of state industrial policy. At this level, the formation and implementation of measures for macrostructural transformations, the creation of favorable conditions for such transformations and the adaptation or neutralization of their adverse effects take place and are ensured.

2. The sectoral (sectoral) level of industrial policy determines the specific goals and measures of the state in relation to a particular industry in a broad or narrow sense.

3. The regional level of industrial policy determines the goals and measures of the state in relation to the industrial development of individual regions.

Due to the fact that industrial policy affects the functioning of the entire national economy, in order to make decisions regarding the choice of goals and priorities of industrial policy, a thorough analysis of the state of the national economy and the definition of a long-term strategy for the socio-economic development of the state are necessary. In this regard, in the economic literature it is customary to distinguish the following three types of industrial policy:

1) internally oriented (import substitution);

2) export-oriented;

3) innovation-oriented (as a special case, resource-saving).

Inward-Oriented Industrial Policy

The import substitution model is based on a strategy to meet domestic demand through the development of national production. An important component of the import substitution policy is the protectionist policy on the part of the state, maintaining a low exchange rate of the national currency and stimulating the production of products that replace imported analogues.

The main positive results of the application of an internally oriented industrial policy are:

Improving the structure of the balance of payments;

Ensuring employment and, as a result, the growth of domestic effective demand;

Reducing the dependence of the economy on outside world;

The development of capital-creating industries in connection with the growth in demand for buildings, structures, machinery and equipment.

Negative results of the implementation of import substitution can be associated with the following processes:

The weakening of the effect of international competition in the domestic market of the country and, as a result, the technological backwardness of the national economy from developed countries;

Creation of unnecessarily favorable conditions for domestic producers, which, in turn, may lead to a weakening of their competitiveness;

Inefficient management at the micro level;

Saturation of the domestic market with lower-quality domestic products, due to protectionist measures of the state, which restrict access to the market of high-quality imported products.

Examples of the implementation of an internally oriented industrial policy (import substitution) are India (1960-1980s), France (1950s-1970s), Japan (after World War II) and China (1970s-1980s). ), USSR, North Korea.

Export-oriented industrial policy

The main objective of an export-oriented industrial policy is to promote the development of export industries whose products are competitive on the international market. Among the tools used by the state in the implementation of this type of industrial policy are:

Establishment of tax and customs benefits for exporting enterprises, providing them with preferential loans;

Pursuing a policy of weak exchange rate national currency;

Measures to create favorable conditions for the development of export-oriented and related industries;

Development of export infrastructure;

Simplification of the customs regime.

The main advantages of the export-oriented model are:

Strengthening the integration links of the national economy with the world economy and, accordingly, access to technologies and resources;

The development of competitive industries, which ensures the multiplier effect of the development of the national economy as a whole, both along the chain of inter-sectoral relations and through the growth of solvent demand from the population employed in these industries;

The influx of foreign exchange resources into the country due to the growth of exports;

Attraction of additional investments, including foreign ones.

The most successful examples of the implementation of an export-oriented development model are South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong (1960-1980s), Chile, China (1980-1990s) and India (1990s), in a wide understanding of industrial policy (as a structural policy), this can include the US agricultural policy.

At the same time, there are unsuccessful attempts to implement such a model of industrial policy. First of all, these are Mexico, Venezuela and a number of other Latin American countries (1980s).

Despite the significant benefits that society can receive from the implementation of an export-oriented industrial policy, under certain conditions it can lead to negative consequences.

For example, in the case when export-oriented growth is realized at the expense of the raw material sector of the national economy, which may be dictated, for example, by political or financial reasons, the following negative processes may occur:

Deepening the raw material orientation of the economy;

Growing corruption in government bodies responsible for regulating foreign trade operations;

The outflow of labor and financial resources from the manufacturing industry to the extractive industry, which negatively affects the long-term competitiveness of the national economy (for example, Venezuela);

Decrease in innovative activity due to the weakening of the manufacturing industry (“Dutch disease”);

Stagnation in the manufacturing industry leads to the need to import new equipment and other high-tech products from abroad, making the country dependent on foreign manufacturers (similar processes are currently taking place in Russia).

It should be noted that the export of raw materials can serve as a source of economic growth only in the short term. Long-term prospects for the development of the national economy with an export-raw material orientation are doubtful.

However, the negative consequences of the implementation of the export-oriented model arise not only in the case of orientation towards the export of raw materials, an example can be Mexico, where the orientation of the country's economy towards the export of highly processed products assumed the use of a significant share of imported components in its production, which made the economy of this country dependent on external providers. When the cost of labor in Mexico increased, the products assembled in Mexico ceased to be competitive in the world market.

Practice shows that failures in the implementation of an export-oriented industrial policy were mainly associated with a decrease in the diversification of the national economy and the strengthening of the role of industries dependent on the world market conditions, which, with a deterioration in the situation on the world market for exported products, led to a crisis.

When choosing this type of industrial policy, it is necessary to take into account the scale of the country, the level of scientific and technological development, the security production resources. In this regard, there are two types of export orientation.

The first type is due to the insignificance of the size of the national economy and the relatively simple structure of the economy, which leads to the relative unprofitability of the development of import substitution due to limited domestic demand. Singapore is an example.

The second type is caused by the country's significant competitive advantage over other countries. An example is the People's Republic of China, which has a huge reserve of cheap labor, which, in the conditions of a saturated domestic market, makes it necessary to look for new markets abroad. At the same time, predominantly extensive methods of expanding production significantly reduce the possibilities for the development of knowledge-intensive production.

So, the main advantages of an export-oriented industrial policy are international cooperation, improved competitiveness national industry, deepening integration into international division labor. However, one should be wary of a decrease in export diversification, which increases the dependence of the national economy on external conditions.

Innovation-oriented industrial policy

This type of industrial policy is fundamentally different from those described above. The main task in the implementation of this policy is to intensify innovation and the introduction of new technologies at domestic enterprises.

Taking into account that innovative activity has a significant lag between investing in an innovative project and its payback period (payback period) and a high risk of non-return of investments, investment decisions that are beneficial from the point of view of society at the level of economic entities may not always be made, since their behavior is dominated by short-term goals.

Numerous researchers note that the higher the level of competition (the lower the level of concentration) in the industry, the less the firms' inclination to invest in innovative development, and the main source of financing for innovative activity is the economic profit received by firms with monopoly power in the market. Therefore, the state should stimulate this type of activity and direct it in the right direction, especially in the case of industries with a low level of concentration.

The positive aspects of applying the innovative type of development are:

Acceleration of scientific and technological progress;

Increasing the competitiveness of products in the international and domestic markets;

Increasing demand for a highly skilled workforce, which stimulates the population to receive quality education;

Stability of the balance of payments and the exchange rate of the national currency, ensured by the high competitiveness of products.

Intensive development of capital-creating industries, mainly engineering, as well as industries with a high degree of product processing, which are the basis for the economy of any industrialized country.

Despite the great attractiveness, innovation-oriented industrial policy has not been used so often in world practice, this is due to a number of difficulties associated with its implementation:

1) the need to attract significant investment in the development of the R&D infrastructure and the renewal of the main production assets of the industry, which, as a rule, requires the attraction of significant external borrowings;

2) the financial vulnerability of national enterprises at the initial stage leads to the need to apply protectionist measures and non-market methods of stimulating R&D, which often meets resistance in state level;

3) national educational and professional institutions, as a rule, are unable to meet the growing need for a highly skilled workforce, so the implementation of this type of development should be accompanied by the implementation of various programs to increase the educational level of the population, as well as to increase the quality of education.

Given the high capital intensity of the innovation model model, it is usually applied selectively in the most competitive industries. However, the overall effect of the application of this model extends to all sectors of the national economy.

As examples of the implementation of the innovative development model, we can cite such countries as Japan (1970-1990s), South Korea (1980s-1990s), the USA, and the countries of the European Union.

It should be noted that the application of one or another type of industrial policy leads to a redistribution of production factors to priority sectors of the economy, which reduces the opportunities for the development of other sectors. For this reason, application examples mixed types industrial policy are very rare.

Industrial policy has a dynamic aspect, and after achieving the goals set by it, its priorities should be adjusted in accordance with the changed economic conditions and the existing structure of the economy. For this reason, in almost any developed country, all three types of industrial policy have been implemented in one form or another.

Based on the analysis of world experience in carrying out structural transformations, we can single out the following strategy for the implementation of industrial policy that is optimal for society.

Therefore, it is necessary to take into account the dynamic nature of industrial policy - over time, the need to stimulate the development of selected industries disappears, and there is a need to stimulate other industries.

Depending on the chosen strategy of industrial policy, the sectoral policy of the state in each specific industry should be determined.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Hosted at http://www.allbest.ru/

• Introduction
• conclusions
• Conclusion
• List of sources used

Introduction

The theme of the test "Industrial policy" in the discipline "Economic theory".

At the time of the collapse of the USSR and the formation of Ukraine as an independent state, the industrial sector occupied a leading position in its economy. 7.8 million people were employed in industry. - more; than any other economic activity. In 1991, output by state industrial enterprises located on the territory of Ukraine accounted for more than 50% of the total output of goods and services by sectors of the economy and more than 40% of GVA.

At that time, the Ukrainian industry was part of a single national economic complex of the USSR, which developed on a planned basis. Since, after the collapse of the USSR, Ukraine took a course towards the transition from a planned economy to a market one, the industry was forced to go through a period of institutional and economic transformations, the main elements of which were the privatization of state property, the liberalization of prices for goods and services, and the elimination of the state monopoly on foreign trade.

The expected results of such transformations were bringing the volume and structure of industrial production in line with effective demand in the domestic and foreign markets, restructuring and modernizing the production apparatus, updating production technologies, increasing labor productivity and reducing the anthropogenic impact on the environment. It was natural to expect that due to large-scale reforms the size of the industrial sector of the economy would shrink, but over time it would become more efficient and competitive, better meeting the new requirements for the economic security of the state.

industrial policy neoclassical evolutionary

In order to support and stimulate the development of the industry in the difficult conditions of market transformations, the Ukrainian state has developed and implemented a number of measures in the field of industrial policy. In 1996, the Concept of State Industrial Policy was adopted (Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine dated February 29, 1996 No. 272). The next concept of industrial policy appeared in 2003 (Decree of the President of Ukraine dated February 12, 2003 No. 102). Then the State Program for the Development of Industry for 2003-2011 was adopted (Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine dated July 28, 2003 No. 1174). In addition, regulation of the development of Ukrainian industry in a market economy (sometimes contradictory) was carried out by methods of fiscal and monetary policy.

Industrial policy: theoretical aspect.

Ultimately, over the past 20 years, market adaptation has really taken place, and now the industry of Ukraine, represented mainly by enterprises of non-state forms of ownership, produces such products that are in demand in the domestic and foreign markets.

However, firstly, in terms of form, the transformation processes resembled more a spontaneous collapse (especially in the first half of the 1990s) (Fig.) than targeted training and gradual adaptation to changing environmental conditions, and therefore were accompanied by serious social costs: suffice it to note that the number of people employed in industry decreased from 7.8 million people. in 1991 to 3.5 million people. in 2009, that is, more than twice.

Secondly, there was no mass restructuring and modernization of the production apparatus, no renewal of production technologies. Market adaptation was carried out mainly not through the creation of new, high-tech industries, but due to the extinction of individual enterprises and even entire industries (in the light industry), whose products were not in demand or turned out to be uncompetitive. As for enterprises and industries that managed to "survive" (in the extractive industry, ferrous metallurgy, electric power industry, gas industry, chemistry and petrochemistry, mechanical engineering), many of them still use the former USSR equipment and technologies that determine the level of labor productivity and man-made impact on the environment.

Thirdly, from the standpoint of the economic component of national security, the results of the market adaptation of Ukrainian industry to the new economic conditions cannot be considered satisfactory either. It turned out to be vulnerable to economic shocks, unable to maintain a trajectory of sustainable functioning in a rapidly changing economy. external environment. This was especially evident during the global financial and economic crisis, in 2009, when industrial production fell by more than 20%, which put Ukraine on the brink of default.

Thus, on the whole, the unsatisfactory results of the development of Ukrainian industry over the 20-year period under consideration indicate that serious changes are needed in the field of industrial policy: either it needs to be significantly restructured, or, due to inefficiency, it should be abandoned altogether.

But before raising the question on such a practical plane, it is advisable to turn to the theoretical aspect of the problem, once again weigh the pros and cons of industrial policy in the light of the radically changed economic conditions both within the country and abroad. To do this, the provisions of neoclassical, institutional and evolutionary economic theories will be consistently considered. And let's start the study by establishing the boundaries of its subject area - the definition of the concept of "industrial policy".

1. What is industrial policy?

Judging by the name, industrial policy is some of the actions of the government (central and (or) local) in the field of industry. In other words, this is a certain type of economic policy, along with such widely recognized types as stabilization, financial, trade, etc. However, unlike these types of it, which are of a general economic nature, industrial policy "in the strict sense is sectoral ( sectoral) politics; it is intended to promote industries where intervention must take place for reasons of national independence, technological autonomy, failures of private initiative, decline of traditional activities, geographic or political balance."

Many other specialists agree that industrial policy is sectoral in nature. "Industrial policy is basically any type of selective intervention or government policy aimed at changing the sectoral structure of production in the direction of industries that are expected to offer better prospects for economic growth than in the absence of such intervention, that is, under market equilibrium. ".

The change in the sectoral structure of industrial production is an element of the structural transformation (restructuring) of the economy as a whole. Therefore, it can be determined that industrial policy is "a variety of government measures designed to manage and control the processes of structural transformation of the economy." Moreover, the emphasis is on industry, since "the process of industrialization is important for the transformation of the economy as a whole, and it is possible to influence this process in such a way as to control the entire mechanism of structural changes."

D. Rodrik speaks from somewhat different positions: “There is no evidence that the types of market failures that call for industrial policy take place mainly in industry ( industry)". Therefore, for lack of a more suitable name, he refers to the term "industrial policy" as all actions of economic restructuring in favor of more dynamic activities in general - "regardless of whether they relate to industry or production directly" - and gives examples such policies (including from agriculture and the service sector).

However, such an extended interpretation leads away from the traditional understanding of industrial policy, which, in turn, makes it difficult to study this phenomenon in a historical aspect. Therefore, J. Foreman-Peck, who carried out a retrospective analysis of European industrial policy in the 20th century, refers to its sphere only those producing ( manufacturing) and infrastructure ( infrastructure) industries ( industries). And although he believes that, in principle, the term " industry" can be extended to any source of employment - be it mining, agriculture or the service sector (assuming that the classification of jobs is somewhat arbitrary), yet "government policies towards agriculture and services in general differed from policies towards industry more strictly defined, and therefore the field of study must be limited so that it can be managed.

Appeal to historical aspects problem allows you to identify a certain shift in its research paradigm. If until the 80s of the XX century. industrial policy was usually understood as actions for the direct intervention of the state in the economy and directive control of the government over the production apparatus, then "at present, this term, on the contrary, denotes a variety of policies that are carried out by different institutional entities in order to stimulate the creation of firms, in favor of their concentration, promoting innovation and competitive development in the context of an open economy. Therefore, the new industrial policy is mainly a policy of industrial development, in which the industry is implicitly considered as an organization, as well as the strategic management of human competencies and technical capabilities. "

In modern terminology, the traditional sectoral type of industrial policy, which affects the relative importance of individual industries and enterprises, has been called "vertical policy", and its new functional type, respectively, "horizontal policy". The latter includes actions common to a large number of industries and enterprises in the field of regulatory support economic activity protection of property rights, elimination of administrative barriers, promotion of innovation, etc. The horizontal type of industrial policy is emphasized by the European Commission (the highest executive body of the EU), which proposes measures to ensure the competitiveness of the European manufacturing industry ( manufacturing industry) on the grounds that most innovations take place in this industry.

Since both vertical and horizontal types of industrial policy include a wide range of actions that can affect a variety of areas of economic activity, the question arises of their limitation from the standpoint of the object of policy. Therefore, J. Pelkmans from the whole complex of actions that affect the industry ( industry), highlights those that, in his opinion, should not be attributed to the sphere of industrial policy: these are not policies for industry specifically (macroeconomic regulation, income redistribution, wage policy, etc.), as well as policies that directly affect industry, but are intended not only for it (privatization, regional development, price controls, etc.). It is obvious that such a division cannot be considered strict, because actions intended not only for industry are difficult to separate from the sphere of industrial policy proper.

A similar ambiguity can be seen with regard to industrial policy goals: “In most cases, industrial policy has many goals - increasing short-term employment, increasing output, improving income distribution and increasing technological capacity. It often also includes (correctly or incorrectly) non-economic goals of national pride and prestige, as well as a perceived need to promote "strategic" domestic industries". Above, such goals as the structural transformation of the economy, stimulating the creation of firms, promoting innovation, ensuring competitiveness, etc. All this together gives grounds to assert that, "unlike most other areas of economic policy, industrial policy does not have a clearly defined and a generally accepted set of goals to be achieved.

So, it is not possible to strictly outline the boundaries of the subject area of ​​research - to determine industrial policy - because there is no clarity in:

a) what exactly is the object of this policy (what should be understood by industry as an object of policy, why and how should it be separated from other sources of employment);

b) what actions relate to the content of industrial policy (include here system-wide actions in the economy, including industry, or actions in relation to industry only, which may also have system-wide effects);

c) what are the goals of industrial policy, what exactly should be the final desired result of its implementation.

This conclusion does not appear to be unexpected or original: "The expression 'industrial policy' means different things to different people" so that "any six randomly chosen economists will no doubt produce at least a dozen different opinions on the subject." And again: "No taxonomy can fully cover the range of ideas about industrial policy that can be found in the literature" 25 . "Industrial policy, despite being labeled as 'politics', lacks the most characteristic features of the latter."

But the impossibility of strictly delineating the subject area of ​​research and giving a universal definition of industrial policy does not mean that the search for its particular (for special purposes) definitions does not make sense. In principle, this is a typical task of assigning heterogeneous elements to a certain set, which plays an important role in human understanding (for example, in biology, computer science, etc.). We can say that industrial policy is (in mathematical terminology) some fuzzy set of elements, characterized by the fact that the membership function can take any values ​​in the interval , and not just the values ​​0 or 1.

In order to establish which elements should be included in the "fuzzy set" of industrial policy and which should not, it is important to determine the purpose for which such a restriction is carried out. In the present work, this is a study of the theory of the question. In its full form, it is not a coherent and consistent logical system, but a conceptual aggregate or "population" of concepts 29 that develop in competition for the best explanation of the same sphere of empirical phenomena (intersecting spheres of phenomena) and the prediction of possible scenarios for the development of events. In turn, the development of such a conceptual unit has direct and feedback with the evolution of a "population" of practices, in this case industrial policy practitioners.

Guided by these considerations, in order to solve the set task, from the many elements of industrial policy, the composition of which has changed in time and space, it is necessary to single out a "solid disciplinary core" that preserves the historical continuity of the subject area of ​​research to which scientists appeal (or appealed). However, the problem lies in the fact that supporters of individual economic theories not only use dissimilar methods of explanation and prediction, but also often turn to the study of different aspects of empirical phenomena, so that the composition and structure of the fuzzy set of industrial policy in the view of, for example, a neoclassical adherent can differ significantly. from its composition and structure in the view of an adherent of institutionalism or evolutionism.

Therefore, further, when analyzing the provisions of scientific theories in the field of industrial policy, we will proceed from such a broad understanding of its content, which would make it possible to consider the arguments of representatives of different points of view. And so that the scope of this analysis is not unlimited, it is proposed to use as a limiter an analogue of the philosophical principle of intentionalism, according to which any action should be evaluated from the point of view of its purpose. The idea is to consider the theoretical foundations of only those actions that have the intention (intention) affect the industry - the production (extraction, movement, manufacture, processing) of material goods. This means that both "vertical politics" (to the extent that it aims to change the relative importance of industry as a whole and (or) its individual sectors) and "horizontal politics" (to the extent that it concerns the institutions innovations, etc. in industry).

2. Neoclassical foundations of industrial policy

Under the usual neoclassical assumptions, free competition of rationally self-interested economic agents that are fully informed and do not have market power leads to a Pareto efficient use of scarce resources. Therefore, the grounds for state intervention in such a market mechanism arise if there are obstacles to free competition, known as market failures ( market failures). However, this intervention itself can also be associated with failures, but now the state ( government failures). So the neoclassical arguments "for" industrial policy can be countered by equally convincing arguments "against" it.

Market failures. In the context of industrial policy, market failures that give rise to some form of government intervention usually include incomplete information, uncompetitive markets, and externalities.

incomplete information. From the point of view of commodity producers, the incompleteness of information may result in incorrect assessments of the profitability of individual commercial projects. The problem becomes more complicated if it is planned to launch a new product, the profitability of which has not yet been assessed by the market, and in the case of “linked” investments, when the uncertainty of investments in one activity (for example, in ore dressing) gives rise to uncertainties in investments in related activities (for example, , in the production of iron and steel). In turn, this leads to errors in assessing business prospects, and also reduces the potential level of business activity and investment in the economy. From the point of view of consumers, the incompleteness of information about the quality of new products forces them to be guided by average estimates of already known comparable goods. In this situation, there is a risk that businesses offering above-average quality products will be forced out of the market - what has been called "adverse selection" ( adverse selection). In addition, corporations may deliberately create barriers to the flow of information, deliberately disseminate incomplete and/or inaccurate information, and develop strategies that create market imperfections. Opposition from public authorities may be that they "develop a strong competition policy to restore conditions of fair competition in a situation close to full knowledge, and implement a strategic industrial policy, through which they play an active role in encouraging non-opportunistic behavior in the industries of interest industry".

Non-competitive markets. Problems with competition in the markets, which determine one or another degree of market power of economic entities, occur for a number of reasons. These may be the control of scarce resources, high fixed costs, economies of scale in production. “In an industry characterized by high fixed costs (and therefore economies of scale), the first firm in the market has a decisive first-mover advantage that prevents other firms from entering this market. In essence, high fixed costs and economies of scale are barriers to entrance, behind which the pioneer captures the rent to the detriment of potential competitors and consumers. If economies of scale are so great that it allows one enterprise to satisfy the entire market demand, then one speaks of a natural monopoly - in the sense that barriers to entry are based on the laws of nature. In addition, as is known from the history of industrial policy, such barriers can be artificially created by the state: “The technologies of the 19th century were such that the infrastructure business held back the growth of industrial enterprises, and the most costly type of this business was railways. Railroads and roads were needed to get troops to the frontiers, and telecommunications were needed to give them instructions on what to do. For reasons of national security, communications networks, postal services and roads, as well as the electric telegraph and telephone, have traditionally been state monopolies, except when finances are scarce. natural monopolies), directive recreation of a competitive environment (due to the forced separation of enterprises), facilitating market entry (by easing regulatory requirements, allocating subsidies for start-ups, etc.).

Externalities. Knowledge is a typical example of externalities in the context of industrial policy. Once received, they can be assimilated by a large number of economic entities with relatively low costs (compared to the costs of their generation). Therefore, the social return on private investment in the creation of knowledge is greater than the individual level of profitability of the investor, and the total efforts of enterprises aimed at obtaining knowledge are the implementation of R&D, the opening of new market opportunities (the so-called " self- discovery"), etc. - may be below the socially optimal level. A similar problem is associated with the costs of enterprises for training personnel, from which, in conditions of high mobility, other organizations also benefit. As in the case of other externalities, this weakens incentives to provide training In addition, externalities arise in the process of coordination in time and space - when the creation of new products requires, in particular, large simultaneous investments in related activities, the organization of which is not ensured by the market mechanism, the geographical concentration of industry, driven by economies of scale and the presence within a given territory of rare or hard-to-move factors of production.Externalities can be both positive (due to common infrastructure, concentration of skilled workers, diffusion of tacit knowledge) and negative (due to the accumulation of problem industries and environmental problems). The usual neoclassical recipes for solving externality problems are to provide subsidies (monetary, credit, tax, etc.) and government purchases - to enhance positive externalities (for example, by stimulating R&D and spinoffs), as well as to levy additional mandatory payments (Pigou taxes) and fines - to mitigate negative externalities (for example, by increasing the costs of environmental pollutants).

State failures. To correct market failures, public authorities intervene in business processes(through taxes, subsidies, purchases, regulations, etc.), but the end result of their actions can also be failures - an even less efficient use of limited resources than without such intervention. In the context of industrial policy, state failures include imperfect information, self-serving behavior officials, conflicts of industrial policy of the state with other types of economic policy.

imperfect information. The administrative bureaucracy that governs the state, unlike those economic entities that are directly involved in market transactions, is less aware of the prices, costs and benefits of a particular business, ways of its development, prospects for changing the range of products, reorienting sales markets, etc. :" Government sector is not omniscient and tends to be even less informed than the private sector about location and the nature of market failures that block diversification. The government may not even know what exactly it does not know. "The ignorance of the state authorities is also associated with the definition of the list and selection of the best tools to achieve the goals. These can be a variety of means, both monetary (taxes, fines, subsidies) and non-monetary (intellectual property rights, state regulation of mergers and acquisitions of enterprises, tariffs, non-tariff measures, including quotas and licenses) types.The use of each of them is associated with the introduction of distortions in economic processes and long-term consequences that are difficult to predict - especially when more than one instrument is used individually, and several tools in the complex.

Selfish behavior official persons. If, in accordance with the premise of the rational selfishness of economic actors, officials pursue primarily personal (rather than public) interests, then the results of their actions may be inefficient allocation of resources (allocation of subsidies to the wrong industries that really need them, unnecessarily low or high tariffs, etc.) and the introduced distortion of competition - no matter how well aware they are of market problems. When regulators are set up to enforce industrial policy, the self-serving behavior of officials can lead to their "capture" ( regulatory capture), which means that these bodies begin to perform the functions assigned to them in the interests of those firms whose activities they are designed to regulate. This gives some grounds for the conclusion that "economic regulation is not carried out at all in public interest, but is a process by which interest groups try to advance their (private) interests." As a rule, the "capture" of regulatory bodies is achieved by methods of corruption (through bribes or providing various benefits to officials, for example, in the form of guarantees of future employment, etc.) although other methods can be used for this.

Conflicts industrial politicians states With others types economic politicians. In addition to industrial policy, there are at least two other types of economic policy related to state support business: these are trade policy (aimed at protecting the interests of domestic producers and consumers) and competition policy (aimed at ensuring the effective functioning of the market coordination mechanism and combating non-competitive business practices). All of them have overlapping areas of application, and therefore their simultaneous use, which is common in practice, is fraught with contradictions and even conflicts. A typical example of such contradictions are those that arise in the implementation of industrial policy in the form of support for "young industries" ( infant industry). Such support, usually referring to market failures (in the form of poorly functioning capital markets, information barriers to entry into the industry), involves the creation of special trade barriers and the adoption of measures to protect against competition, which is clearly contrary to modern competition and trade policies, often aimed at ensuring greater openness of national economies.

Thus, according to the above list of failures of the state, its actions aimed at improving the situation in the industry do not guarantee success at all. The criteria for its evaluation in neoclassical economic theory are the Pareto improvement criterion or a more operational criterion of potential Pareto improvement, involving a comparison of costs and results ( cost- benefit analysis). Therefore, in order to be convinced of the effectiveness or inefficiency of the chosen industrial policy option, it is necessary to compare the associated costs and benefits. Obviously, this is very difficult to do in practice, due to the problematic nature of both correctly measuring the benefits of government interventions aimed at correcting market failures and calculating the costs associated with them, taking into account the side effects that arise.

3. Institutional foundations of industrial policy

In institutional theory, in contrast to neoclassical theory, the emphasis in justifying industrial policy is shifted from the search for the optimal allocation of limited resources to the analysis of institutions (spontaneous and formal rules with enforcement mechanisms) that contribute to or hinder the success of such a policy, and the transaction costs that accompany relationships between economic entities. Therefore, for example, differences in the productivity of the economies of closely located countries (South and North Korea, the former West and East Germany, etc.), which are incomprehensible from the positions of neoclassics, can be easily explained by differences in the effectiveness of institutions.

Such a strong emphasis on rules stems from the assumptions of institutional theory that self-interested economic actors are not fully informed and rational, but "are only capable of approximate and limited rationality." And what they can and cannot do in the current situation is determined by the institutions that limit, structure and stimulate individual behavior. Therefore, the grounds for government intervention arise when industrial policy requires the improvement of existing institutions or the adaptation of new institutions, thereby reducing transaction costs, that is, for a reason that can be called "rule failures" (rules failures).

Among the institutional bases of industrial policy are arguments in favor of the formation of special rules in the areas of industrial innovation, industry diversification and global value chains.

Industrial innovation. Modern economic theory moved away from understanding innovation as a mechanical process in which large financial investments automatically provide a greater return (after all, it was usually believed that an increase in R&D costs leads to an increase in innovation), towards an organic socio-cultural process in which non-material factors play a key role, the ability of economic actors to learn and cooperative behavior. Now the prerequisite for their successful activities in the field of innovation, which plays a key role in ensuring the competitiveness of industry, is considered to be a special social order based on "long rules" of interaction that create prerequisites for long-term economic planning and cooperation, and not just the rivalry of economic entities, then which is called " co-oppetition". In modern conditions, "innovations in industries are the result of the interaction of various actors (firms, universities, public agencies, financial institutions) that have formal and informal partnerships." And in innovative business areas such as pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, collaboration between large, small, and new firms is pervasive ( pervasive).

A commonly cited rationale for government intervention in such relationships is that "markets provide insufficient incentives for firms to cooperate." However, in this case, explaining in neoclassical terms markets, market failures and welfare economics based on the analysis of the interaction of independent selfish individuals is not enough. Institutional theory proceeds from the fact that individuals "form their preferences not in isolation from other people, but in response to social events and widely disseminated information." In addition, in organizations, their choice is limited to routines. Moreover, in individual organizations these are different routines, subordinated to different goals, not always commercial ones. Clearly, explaining the failures (or successes) of cooperation between such dissimilar organizations is beyond the scope of neoclassical theory. The reason for these failures is no longer the failures of the markets, but the mentioned failures of the rules (in particular, their short-term and non-partner nature). And support for the "long rules" of partnerships between diverse organizations (instead of "short" and non-partner ones) can be undertaken by those interested in economic growth state - again taking into account possible errors government, corruption, etc. “The role of the state is, therefore, to act as a guarantor of cooperative behavior for each of the partners. For example, in Japan, the Ministry of International Trade and Industry brings together in projects different kinds business and ensures that each partner is acting with integrity."

Industry diversification ( sectoral diversification) in industry, leading to structural changes and contributing to the growth of the economy and social welfare, involves the development of the production of goods that are not traditional for a given country or region. This usually does not require radical innovation based on R&D, but can be achieved by adapting goods already known in the world and their manufacturing technologies to local conditions - what is called "self-discovery" ( self- discovery). As in the case of innovation, commercial organizations cannot solve the problems of such adaptation on their own due to information problems and coordination failures. The way out lies in institutional measures that provide for the formation of rules and the organization on their basis of the process of public-private cooperation - through joint research and the search for consensus on exactly where information and coordination externalities arise, what the goals of industrial policy in this context may be in this context. and how they should be achieved. "The correct model of industrial policy," notes D. Rodrik, "is not the application of Pigou taxes or subsidies by the autonomous government, but strategic cooperation between the private sector and the government in order to identify where the most significant obstacles to restructuring lie and what type of intervention with the greatest likely to eliminate them. At the same time, the usual discussions about the tools, costs and results of government intervention in the industrial economy are of no fundamental importance. It is much more important "to have a process in place to help identify areas of desirable intervention. Governments that understand this will constantly be on the lookout for ways in which they can promote structural change and cooperation with the private sector. Thus, industrial policy is more a state of mind than or to others."

Global value chains. The processes of globalization and liberalization of international trade have led to a change in the situation in the world economy. Now, the Asian Development Bank notes, explaining where and how industrial goods are produced is no easy task - their design, manufacture, distribution and maintenance are divided into elements scattered around the world. We are talking about a system of international production and distribution relations, called "global value chains" ( global value chains- GVCs), in which the usually more labor-intensive process steps are moved into the territory developing countries. GVCs, now "key and enduring structural features of the global economy", are creating both new opportunities and new threats. On the one hand, participation in these chains allows firms from different countries(above all, less developed ones) to enter into global production structures, improve production processes and products in accordance with GVCs standards, climb the technological ladder and gain wide access to international markets. At the same time, according to some estimates, “the benefits of trade liberalization, which is accompanied by the creation of international supply chain agreements between firms in industrialized and less developed countries, can be 10-20 times more than from trade liberalization itself". And on the other hand, in order to successfully export, it is no longer enough to efficiently produce competitive products: "Suppliers of labor-intensive goods from a developing country must now not only overcome traditional trade barriers , which remain high for some exports from developing countries, but also become part of a certain trading network for the export to take place.

Successful overcoming of these new barriers requires specific industrial policies.

It is that the state

1) help enterprises in their country adapt to the already existing GVCs rules - by informing about what alternative GVCs exist and what key requirements must be met to participate in them, what standards apply here and what needs to be done to achieve them, through organizing collective action to creation of the infrastructure necessary to fulfill logistical requirements, etc.;

2) contribute to the formation of new international rules that are more favorable for domestic enterprises - through the organization of national trading companies, participation in the collective actions of developing countries to harmonize and eliminate double standards, to control compliance with competition rules by large TNCs, their merger policies and acquisitions, etc.

Describing the institutional foundations of industrial policy in general, it is important to note that institutions (if they are considered as a factor of production) are non-mobile factors. Therefore, any country can copy production processes, import equipment, attract qualified personnel from abroad, but cannot borrow successful institutions. Their creation and development is a long process specific to each country, determined by the circumstances of place and time: "Effective institutions have always arisen as a result of a long chain of historical achievements - the ascent from the initial factors of a geographical nature to the direct factors derived from them, among which there are institutional" . But such a formulation of the question already touches upon the problem of the genesis of the institutions themselves, the study of which requires an appeal to the use of a different - evolutionary - paradigm.

4. Evolutionary foundations of industrial policy

In evolutionary economics, in contrast to neoclassical and institutional ones, the motives of people's behavior are determined, in addition to considerations of rationality and social factors, by a natural desire for survival. At the same time, behavior can be both selfish and altruistic, since "in the evolutionary process, it is not individual survival as such that is of real importance, but rather the successful transmission of units of heredity or genes." So under certain conditions "it may be more advantageous for an individual to promote the reproduction of kindred individuals, even at the cost of his own life, thus acting self-sacrificingly for the benefit of others." Competition for limited resources is explained not through the free choice of independent subjects, but through population dominance hierarchies that "arise in groups of living organisms to minimize aggression between individuals competing for limited resources. Since high social rank automatically gives access to all available resources, Natural selection has favored tendencies to struggle for higher social status."

The institutions discussed are also seen as having an epigenetic character. They, like any cultural and behavioral add-ons, are based on a biological basis - in the sense that they are formed by living beings that act as carriers of genetic information and are guided (including) by instincts - innate reactions to external and (or) internal stimuli. And institutions develop "through public teaching the rules of behavior, which begins with primitive, genetically determined forms of social behavior with the addition of new elements as a result of trial and error."

Using ideas borrowed from biology (the concepts of units of evolution, processes of variability, selection and heredity), evolutionary theory explores changes in time and space of economic systems, but not any changes, but only those in which complex open systems adapt to their environment, diversity develops from common sources and accumulates over time new design. Taking into account such a scope of the considered theory, the evolutionary foundations of industrial policy can be found in the field of national innovation systems (NIS) and industrial clusters.

NIS are integral networks of organizations and institutions, the interaction of which determines the features of the innovative development of individual countries. The concept of NIS is based on the idea of ​​"techno-nationalism". This means that in each state, innovative efficiency is determined by the national specifics of the ways in which economic agents with different types of knowledge and skills (enterprises, research institutes, universities, etc.) interact in the system of creating and using innovations 88 . Such a formulation of the question itself is part of a wider set of problems of genetic and cultural co-evolution and the formation of national characteristics of intelligence.

The long-standing scientific debate about whether nature or nurture has more influence on intelligence is still a point of contention between modern environmentalists and geneticists, and so far the odds of the parties are approximately 50/50. In any case, it is clear that national characteristics do matter . And evolutionary economics, which addresses arguments from both sides, "makes a major contribution to understanding the importance for innovation of country characteristics. The concepts of national innovation system and technological trajectory highlight the specific institutional characteristics of different countries and the uniqueness of the history of each country. From the point of view national specificity and institutional dynamism, industrial policy gains new legitimacy".

OECD experts see the basis for state intervention in the context of NIS not in the usual market failures (market failures), but in systemic failures - such as insufficient interaction between actors in the system, a discrepancy between basic research in the public sector and applied in industry , failures in the work of technology transfer institutions, insufficient ability of enterprises to receive and master information 92 . Accordingly, the policy measures proposed by these specialists include the development of networks of business contacts (networking) and the innovative potential of enterprises 93 .

Meanwhile, in terms of NIS, such a justification does not seem to be entirely correct: the concepts of a system and systemic failures are neutral in relation to national specifics (due, among other things, to the ethnic, historical and cultural community of people), while it is of key importance for the concept of NIS. Systemic failures of NIS are characterized, firstly, by the dependence of these systems on the features of the previous development ( path dependence) and, secondly, the national specificity of the country that has developed as a result of this process, characterized by a unique complex of genetic and cultural factors. Therefore, in this context, it is more correct to use evolutionary terminology, which takes into account these aspects, and define the shortcomings of NIS as fitness failures. (fitness failures). The natural processes of variability, selection and heredity can lead to the consolidation and spread of organizational routines that do not correspond to the national specifics of a given country and hinder the innovative development of its industry. Therefore, the government (taking into account the restrictions on its possible failures) is required to organize a process of purposeful nationally oriented cultivation of organizational routines that determine the ability of participants in the innovation process to interact in network contacts, find and recognize relevant information and technologies, etc. In turn, the criterion for the success of such cultivation is not the current economic efficiency taking into account (institutionalism) or without taking into account (neoclassical) transaction costs, but the ability of economic entities to survive and reproduce, assessed through development indicators (for example, through indicators of the technology life cycle, technological limits and gaps).

Industrial clusters can be defined as spatial agglomerations of producers united by networks of intense and diverse relationships. The concept of an industrial cluster differs from the concept of an ordinary industrial agglomeration in that, in addition to the spatial concentration of enterprises, a cluster implies functional links between its members and complementary competencies.

Like many socio-economic phenomena, clusters change in time and space: they can grow and develop (as well as degrade), often (but not always) in sync with the life cycle of the dominant industry. This evolutionary process "should be understood as a continuous, never the ongoing interplay of dependency on the past ( path dependence), creating a new one ( path creation) and destruction of the existing ( path destruction)".

As a rule, the upward dynamics of cluster evolution is associated with the development of network relations and innovative behavior, when industrial enterprises become part of innovative clusters ( clusters of innovation) - spatial clusters of organizations interconnected in the innovation process - manufacturers, suppliers, service providers, universities, trade organizations, etc. Today, the special significance of such clusters is determined, firstly, by the fact that in the context of globalization, business gets better opportunities to choose the most suitable areas for their efforts. "The more markets are globalized, the more likely it is that resources will flow to more attractive regions, thereby strengthening the role of clusters and influencing regional specialization." The result of such processes is that, for example, in Europe, up to 40% of the employed work at enterprises that are part of clusters. And secondly, the fact that the traditional linear model of innovation (in the form of a sequential process " fundamental research- applied research - R&D - new technologies and products") is gradually losing its significance. At the same time, the spatial model of the "learning region" ( learning region), where innovation requires the parallel development of learning capabilities and the formation of strategic innovation behavior of diverse and complementary economic actors that benefit "from geographic proximity, facilitating tacit knowledge flows and unplanned interactions, which are critical elements of the innovation process". The state policy in relation to industrial clusters entering the trajectory of upward dynamics provides for measures "to concentrate often thematically dispersed companies at specific points. These focal points generate the first joint actions within the cluster and allow it to enter the growth phase."

The downward dynamics of cluster evolution leads to the formation of territorial closures ( lock- ins), in particular in old-industrial regions, where "original strengths based on geography and networking, such as the industrial environment, highly specialized infrastructure, close relationships between enterprises and strong support for regional institutions, turn into barriers to innovation." This situation can also be characterized as fitness failures, but only with an emphasis not on national (as in the situation with NIS), but on territorial aspects of the problem. An important reason for this isolation of the old industrial regions is the organizational routine of self-sustaining regional coalitions of business and politicians ( self- sustaining coalition), in which representatives of large companies prefer not to invest in business restructuring, because they fear the loss of skilled workers, and government officials are not interested in such restructuring, because they fear loss of tax revenues. In order to avoid the continuation of unfavorable trends leading to stagnation or decline, and to switch to a different development trajectory involved in renewal, it is necessary to cultivate (taking into account the territorial context) organizational routines that form the ability of such coalitions to activate the innovation-oriented adaptation of old industrial clusters, to create new clusters. in established industries and to the development of knowledge-intensive activities. The effectiveness of such actions, again, is not limited to indicators of current efficiency, but requires the use of long-term growth indicators (for example, the criterion of balanced development).

Similar Documents

The concept of industrial policy, its tools. Modern industrial policy of Russia. Regulator of the markets for factors of production and final products. The role of the state in the development and implementation of a strategy for the long-term development of priority sectors.

test, added 08/11/2014


Industrial policy as one of the main functions of the state. Influence of the state on the competitiveness of industrial production. Activities of the state to improve the efficiency of market mechanisms. Stimulation of the investment process.

abstract, added 12/08/2014


State and problems of industrial development. Industry as one of the leading sectors of the economy, which forms the foundation of scientific and technological transformation and development, social progress society. Priority areas industrial modernization.

test, added 09/14/2010


The main characteristic of industrial policy in Russian Federation, the history of its development and development technology. Features of the new industrial policy in Russia during the crisis, its necessity, goals, values, principles, subjects and stages.

term paper, added 09/25/2011


Industrial policy: essence, types, problems, development strategy. Characteristics of the industrial policy of the Tomsk region: tasks, forms of implementation. Regulatory methods, support for industrial activities. Production of nano-objects. Industrial zones.

term paper, added 06/08/2008


Essence, goals, priorities of industrial policy. Implementation of industrial policy in the Republic of Kazakhstan at the present stage. Implementation of industrial and innovation policy in accordance with the Decree of the President and the Implementation Action Plan.

test, added 09/28/2010


Industrial policy as a system program, a set of actions and measures for the development of the largest and most competitive national firms in the world market; its main goals, principles, stages and methods. Consideration of structural policy in the conditions of Russia.

test, added 03/12/2014


Classification of types of industrial policy. Interaction between the state and society in the process of developing industrial policy: scientific and technical forecasts. Analysis of legislation, macroeconomic and institutional component of industrial policy.

thesis, added 09/08/2011


Industrial policy as an organization of work in the decision-making process in the field of production and investment, development of infrastructure and human capital in order to stimulate domestic production. Its tasks and status in Kazakhstan.

presentation, added 11/10/2014


a brief description of socio-economic development of the Chelyabinsk region. State regulation of the structure of production in the long term. Development current trends improvement of industrial policy in the Chelyabinsk region.