Will there be a transition to an innovative development path?
Statement of objectives and determination of parameters is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for achieving the goals. It is equally important to plan measures correctly economic policy, timely concentrate resources on promising directions, achieve their effective use. Unlike liberal policies, the implementation of which does not require special qualifications of executors, successful development policies are complex management work that requires knowledge of development mechanisms modern economy and the ability to use them in building complex economic structures.
In other words, a development policy plan must answer not only the question of what to do, but also the question of how to do it. Unfortunately, the Concept does not contain a clear answer to the last question. Moreover, it contains internal contradictions and limitations, without eliminating which it is impossible to achieve the set goals.
The transition to an innovative path of development implies a significant change in the mechanisms and structure of economic growth. Its main source should be NTP. According to the Concept, “the share of industrial enterprises carrying out technological innovations should increase to 40-50% (2005 - 9.3%), the share of innovative products in industrial output - up to 25-35% (2005 - 2.5 percent )", "the share of the high-tech sector and the knowledge economy in GDP should be at least 17-20% (2006 - 10.5%)." Changes a lot sectoral structure economy. According to the innovative option, the share of the high-tech sector in added value doubles - from 10% to almost 20%. At the same time, the oil and gas sector is shrinking in a mirror manner - from 20% to 12%. In addition to this, the share of the raw materials sector is slightly reduced (from 8.4% to 6.8%) and the share of trade is significantly reduced - from 17.7 to 12.2%.
As correctly stated in the Concept, the “new technological wave, based on nano- and biotechnologies, and the dynamic growth of the global market for high-tech goods and services open up new opportunities for Russia for technological breakthroughs and create new challenges...Russian exports of these products should grow by 15-20% per year and reach the turn of 2020 year to a level of at least 80-100 billion US dollars (about 1% of the world market compared to 0.2% currently).”
Such large-scale changes in the structure of the economy and the style of behavior of its subjects cannot but lead to a significant change in the dependencies between factors and production results. Moreover, the value of the key factor is work force should increase fivefold: “average monthly wage in the economy should exceed $2,000 in 2020 (2006 — $391).” The developers of the Concept plan to bring Russia into the ranks of highly developed countries in terms of social economic development and seize leadership positions in a number of key growth areas of the global economy.
Implementing such ambitious plans requires extraordinary efforts that go far beyond the current sluggish and internally contradictory policies. The Concept talks about the formation of a national innovation system and a powerful high-tech complex, the diversification of the economy and the creation of conditions for the realization of the creative potential of the individual. The goals are set to achieve world standards of financing science, education and healthcare, creating conditions for the effective use of skilled labor and improving the quality of human capital, building an effective, result-oriented social infrastructure.
To achieve these goals, the state has a limited set of tools: budget and taxes, money supply, price regulation and foreign economic activity, antimonopoly policy, state-owned enterprises. Based on their use, the state can formulate its development policy, counting on the correct reaction of the institutions of market self-organization. If in relation to the latter the Concept is limited to vague reasoning, the meaning of which is not always clear, then the plans for using the listed public policy instruments are presented quite clearly.
Firstly, in terms of costs social sphere Russia's budget will be significantly closer to global standards. According to the Concept, by 2020, spending on education from public and private sources will amount to at least 5.5% of GDP (2006 - 4.6%), on healthcare - 6.3% (2006 - 3.9 percent); research and development costs - 3.5-4% of GDP (2006 - 1% of GDP). The state will spend 4.5% of GDP on education, 4.8% of GDP on healthcare, and 1.3% of GDP on science.
Note that the level planned for 2020 government funding expenditures on the reproduction of human potential and socio-economic development remain below the currently achieved level in developed countries. Its achievement, taking into account the accumulated funds of the Stabilization Fund, is quite realistic before 2010. Delaying until 2020 the process of equalizing the level of state financing of expenditures for socio-economic development in Russia with other countries does not contribute to the transition to an innovative path of development.
Moreover, in the next three years it is planned to maintain twice the level of underfunding of expenditures on education, science and health care, in comparison with global standards, in which it is now critically important to modernize and radically raise wages. Postponing these measures for several more years will lead to the deepening of irreversible trends in the degradation of domestic science and education and thereby make the implementation of the innovative scenario impossible in principle. The gap between the outgoing and rising generations of scientists and teachers, both in terms of quantity and quality of personnel, in three years may become insurmountable.
Secondly, long-overdue measures to create internal mechanisms for lending to economic growth are being postponed beyond the current decade. Only after the trade balance deficit forecast from 2011 is it planned to switch money emission from acquisition foreign currency to refinance banks to meet domestic demand for loans. Until then, money supply will follow demand from the foreign market, subordinating economic development to the interests of exporters and foreign investors. Taking into account their isolation in the raw materials industries, this means that in the next three years, the state’s monetary policy will keep the economy within the framework of the inertial scenario, preventing the transition to an innovative path of development. Until the end of the forecast period, the process of remonetization of the economy will extend to the level of developed countries - monetary policy in the foreseeable future will restrain economic growth, making it difficult for enterprises to access loans and pushing the best of them to lend abroad. According to the Concept, the contribution banking sector in investment financing will remain low, increasing from 11.3% in 2006 to 20% in 2020.
Thirdly, the Government continues to follow the lead of monopolists in the energy sector, planning further rapid growth of tariffs for gas and electricity. average price electricity costs will increase in 2011-2015. in the range from 35 to 45% and will amount to current rate in 2015 7.8-8 cents per kW by 2015, and in 2016-2020. - in the range from 15 to 25% and 9.5-10.6 cents per kW in 2020, respectively (for the population - up to approximately 14-15 cents per kW). The average gas price for all categories of consumers will increase in 2011-2015. 1.5 -1.6 times for 2016-2020. - by 2 -5%. The average gas price for all categories of consumers will increase to 125-127 US dollars per 1000 cubic meters. meters in 2015 and 135-138 US dollars in 2020.
An increase in tariffs for basic energy resources by more than one and a half times in the next decade will undoubtedly reduce the already unsatisfactory competitiveness of the manufacturing industry. Taking into account the three times higher energy intensity of domestic products compared to competitors, such a large-scale rise in prices for key energy resources will lead to the ruin of many enterprises that have remained viable in the energy-intensive industries of the mechanical engineering and chemical-metallurgical complexes. Already today, the abuses of monopolists in connecting new consumers to gas and electricity supplies have become an insurmountable barrier to the creation of new production facilities, which many domestic investors are beginning to locate in China and other countries with more favorable price conditions. The government should understand that plans to increase gas and electricity tariffs by one and a half times exclude the achievement of the seven-fold increase in exports of engineering products planned in the same document and even casts doubt on the survival of many remaining engineering plants.
Fourthly, the Concept does not plan to eliminate tax barriers that impede the transition to an innovative path of development. We are talking, first of all, about the abolition of VAT, which, by definition, oppresses complex industries with long cooperation chains, as well as the revaluation of fixed assets. Currently, due to their undervaluation, the volume depreciation charges four times lower than the volume of capital investments required for simple reproduction of fixed assets. In addition, enterprises should be given the opportunity to write off all expenses for R&D, personnel training and development new technology on production costs.
Fifthly, the Government’s plans do not combine measures in the sphere of production and consumption of new equipment. For example, on the one hand, they talk about the priority of developing the civil aircraft industry, and on the other hand, decisions are made on the purchase of foreign aircraft by state-controlled airlines and the exemption of their import from import duties. Instead of mastering the mass production of already created modern domestic airliners, the Government is directing budget resources to develop the unpromising American model based on imported components. Meanwhile, Russian engineers are working, investing their knowledge in the creation of a new generation of Boeing, being unclaimed in their own design bureaus. Thus, the development trajectory of a promising knowledge-intensive industry is formed under the influence of lobbyists of foreign competitors, as a result of which the previously created scientific and technical potential is depreciated, and its highest quality components are absorbed by foreign competitors.
Similar examples can be given in other industries. Thus, the state spends tens of billions of rubles on the purchase of foreign medicines when cheaper domestic analogues are available. For many years, the development of domestic capacities for the production of insulin, antibiotics, and vaccines has been blocked. State-controlled energy corporations are investing billions of dollars in purchasing foreign equipment when more competitive domestic equivalents are available. The transition of the mining industry to a foreign technological base means that most of the natural rent generated during the exploitation of Russian mineral deposits is developed abroad. A significant portion of foreign exchange earnings from the export of raw materials remains there, used to repay foreign loans. At the same time, the Russian manufacturing industry is losing its own raw material base, since more than half of hydrocarbons and 2/3 of mineral raw materials are exported.
Thus, the use of the main instruments of state policy to transfer the economy to an innovative path of development is either not expected at all or is postponed until the middle of the forecast period. With such a policy, it is unlikely that the transition to an innovative development path will be possible in principle. In any case, this will be hampered by: rapid increases in gas and electricity tariffs, delaying changes in monetary policy; immutability tax system, postponing until the end of the forecast period the bringing of government spending on social development to the world average. The listed components of the state’s economic policy will keep the Russian economy moving within the framework of the inertial and energy resource scenarios. As shown above, the same is true for the forecast parameters of the Concept, which differ little from each other under different scenarios in the first half of the forecast period.
To truly escape the trap of the inertial energy and raw material scenario onto the trajectory of innovative development, much more large-scale changes in the state’s economic policy and other calculation models are required.
Mechanisms and methods of regulation in the context of the transition to innovative development Author unknown
1.1. Transition to an innovative path of development and the state
The transition to innovative development for Russia has become the most pressing challenge of the time. Quite large-scale practical steps are being taken in this area, but their economic and theoretical justification needs, in our opinion, further development. In this regard, we will consider the process of transition to an innovative economy from a theoretical perspective and try to assess the role of the state in this process.
1.1.1 Simple case: innovative development at the industrial stage
The simplicity of the case under consideration is as follows. First, let's move to the industrial stage of development, say, in the first half of the twentieth century, where there are no signs or talk about a post-industrial society. Secondly, let's take an integral national economy without any influence of globalization. Thirdly, let us assume that the elite of a given country recognizes the transition to innovative development as a task and is ready to act to solve it.
Even such a relatively simple situation requires solving at least three theoretical problems. The first problem is to answer the question: what is development of an innovative and non-innovative type? By what criteria should we determine that one national economy is developing innovatively, and another - non-innovatively?
There are indicators of science intensity or the share of spending on science and education in the country’s budget. But, firstly, these are just indicators, and not a reproduction model, and, secondly, even at the level of individual superficial indicators, it is not clear what their value should be so that we can confidently say that the transition to an innovative path of development has taken place.
For example, the authors of the monograph “The Path to the 21st Century. Strategic problems and prospects for the Russian economy” write that “7 highly developed countries own 46 out of 50 macrotechnologies that ensure competitive production, and the rest of the world owns 3–4 macrotechnologies.” At the same time, “out of 46 macro-technologies possessed by 7 highly developed countries, the USA accounts for 20-22, ..., Germany - 8-10, Japan - 7, England and France - 3-5, Sweden, Norway, Italy, Switzerland - 1-2 each." Based on these data, can we consider that Italy, like the United States, is developing innovatively? The United States spends $385.5 billion a year on research and development, Russia – $25.5 billion.
By what amount should we increase these expenses in order to be considered an innovatively developing country?
The second problem is this. If a given economy moves to an innovative path of development and it is a market economy, will the role of the state strengthen in this economy? Of course, we are talking about strengthening the role of the state, all other things being equal.
It seems that today most economists would agree that in a market national economy of an industrial type, the intensification of the flow of innovation strengthens the role of government regulation. This is due to the simple fact that a lot of time passes from the idea to the commercial implementation of an innovative project, during which there are only costs and no results. The longer this lag and the higher the costs, the less willing a private owner is to invest money.
However, even if the fundamental connection between innovation and the state is recognized, the question remains open about the degree of influence of innovation on strengthening the role of the state in the economy. If we assume that the main purpose of state participation in the innovation process is to provide resources for non-profitable projects and control their implementation, then part of the national resources should move from the bourgeoisie to the bureaucracy. The status of the bourgeoisie will decrease, and the bureaucracy will increase. In the case where innovations have little effect on strengthening the role of the state, the transfer of resources and statuses will not be noticeable and painful. However, if the connection between innovation and government regulation is significant, then the situation will be different. It is unlikely that there will be people who are ready to voluntarily give up a considerable part of their property and thereby reduce their social status. Then it turns out that the bourgeoisie is an opponent of the transition to an innovative type of development and the question arises about the possibilities and methods of suppressing it on the part of the bureaucracy.
Let us assume that we have established the idea that the transition to an innovative type of development requires a significant strengthening of the role of the state in the economy. Then the third theoretical problem arises: what is the state as an economic entity and what is state regulation of the economy?
Perhaps there will be people who claim that the theory of state regulation of the economy was developed by modern Western economic science and there is no problem. However, I am not inclined to agree with scientists of this kind.
Firstly, it is unclear how such concepts as “state regulation” and “plan” relate. We proceed from the fact that a plan is a much more general and fundamental concept than state regulation. The concept of “plan” covers all forms of non-market interaction between economic entities.
These are, first of all, planned economies as such, from the Inca Empire to North Korea. And these are all ways of non-market interaction within and between economies market type. If we take this second case (non-market within a market), then this is: a) the internal economy of enterprises; b) economic behavior of regional authorities; c) government regulation itself and d) non-market transactions at the level of the world economy.
As we see, government regulation of the market is a very special case of planning. However, this is the form of existence of the plan. In this sense, both financial and monetary policies are forms of planning. It follows that the plan is an independent economic reality, opposite to the market. Accordingly, government regulation of the market is not just a growth on the body market economy, but there is something independent and opposite to the market.
If state regulation of a market economy is one of the forms of plan, then a single planning mechanism must be identified that combines the logic of the behavior of the authorities during the period of Stalinism and the logic of the authorities acting in accordance with the monetary rule. At its core, it is the same logic.
In our opinion, modern economic theory has not revealed this logic. What are the reasons that there is no satisfactory theory of plan? The main reason is that, as noted above, Western theorists do not consider the plan (state activity) as an independent economic reality, opposed to the market. This reveals itself in several ways.
1. To study the plan, the principle of so-called “methodological individualism” is applied, when the motivation and behavior of politicians, dictators and bureaucrats is assessed in the same way as the behavior of a private owner in the market, and society is just the sum of individuals. However, this, of course, is not so, and there is an opposite principle of holism, which is more adequate for the study of the plan.
2. When modern economic theory studies the behavior of the state, it studies the behavior of the state in a market economy. That is, developed capitalism is taken and the plan within capital is considered. However, the plan within capital cannot fully reveal its properties and laws. Studying the plan within capital is the same as judging capitalism by studying self-supporting relations in the economy of the Soviet Union. To truly reveal the laws of the plan, it is necessary to study the economic systems where the plan received its maximum development. Only after this the plan within the capital becomes clear.
3. Guided by methodological individualism and considering developed capitalism, modern economic thought interprets the economic activity of the state in several directions.
Firstly, predominantly in macroeconomics the state is understood as a certain entity influencing supply and demand already formed by the market. It is clear that the plan's alternative mechanism to the market is not disclosed here. Government spending and taxes simply shift the supply and demand functions. At the same time, the influence of the state is often presented as something exogenous in relation to the economy.
Secondly, the activities of the state are considered within the framework of the economics of the public sector. In this direction, economists, in our opinion, have obtained more serious results. In particular, an attempt is made here to substantiate the process of value formation in public sector Based on social indifference curves, the concepts of normative interest and social utility appear, and the features of the economic behavior of the bureaucracy are revealed.
However, despite the existing successes, it remains unresolved main question. If we take a market economy, then its simplest economic basis will be a trade transaction carried out between private owners. This trade deal is described in both Marxism and marginalism and partly in institutionalism. The question arises, what is the simplest basis for a planned economy (or a plan within the market)? Trade deal? Of course not. This is some kind of alternative economic mechanism that is unknown to modern Western science. The simplest elements of a trade transaction are the product itself and its price. It is to price signals that market participants must respond. The alternative scheduling mechanism must have parameters similar to the product and price. Similar, but different.
We offer nomenclature and volume as such alternative parameters. The product nomenclature is replaced by the plan nomenclature, and the price is replaced by volume. The process of creating the value of any product occurs in price and volume forms. Depending on what form the product takes, the form of capital or a plan, either the price or volume type of value is updated in it. In a planned economy, instead of commodity-money exchange between private owners, we get the disaggregation of volume into nomenclature and the aggregation of nomenclature into volume, carried out within the bureaucracy class. This is the movement of the plan.
As a result, if we admit that in an industrial market economy, in the situation of its transition to an innovative path of development, strengthening of state regulation is required, then this means strengthening the action of the nomenclature-volume mechanism.
The general ideological mood today is that economic activity the state is considered less effective than the activities of private individuals. Impressive figures are provided as proof: “ Soviet Union mined 8 times more iron ore than the United States, smelting three times as much cast iron from this ore, and twice as much steel from this cast iron. It produced cars from this metal at a cost about the same as the United States. In the USSR, the consumption of raw materials and energy per unit of final product was 1.6 and 2.1 higher, respectively, than in the USA. Average term the construction of an industrial enterprise in the USSR exceeded 10 years, in the USA - less than 2 years. In 1980, per unit of final product, the USSR consumed 1.8 times more steel than the United States, 2.3 times more cement, 7.6 times more mineral fertilizers, and 1.5 times more forest products.”
However, even if we accept these “killer” statistics without critical evaluation, the problem of the comparative effectiveness of capital and plan remains. The functioning of economic systems is associated with two effects: the stimulation effect and the regulation effect. These effects can be both positive and negative. The functioning of the market system is accompanied by a positive stimulation effect and a negative regulation effect. The planned system generates the opposite combination.
One of the manifestations of the regulation effect is the mobilization effect. We are interested in this particular effect, since it reflects the fact of redistribution of resources to the innovation sector of the economy. The comparative effectiveness of the market and the plan in the event of a need to transition to an innovative type of development is determined by a combination of stimulation and mobilization effects. If, during the transition from plan to market, the positive effect of stimulation is less than the negative effect of mobilization, and during the reverse transition from market to plan, the negative effect of stimulation is less than the positive effect of mobilization, then the planned economy turns out to be more effective. And, accordingly, vice versa.
1.1.2. The first complicating circumstance: post-industrial transition
We considered a simple case national economy in the conditions of the industrial stage, moving to an innovative path of development. Now let us take into account a number of circumstances complicating this simple case and the problems arising in this connection.
The first complicating circumstance is the transition from the industrial to the post-industrial stage of development. Here a well-known problem immediately arises: what is the content of this stage. There are definitions of information, new, service economy, knowledge-based economy, etc. There is a position that there is no transition to a post-industrial economy, but there is a new stage of industrialization. If we take the point of view of the majority and admit that post-industrial economy However you define it, this is reality, then another problem arises.
Transition to post-industrial society gave birth to such a phenomenon as globalization. The problem arising in connection with the post-industrial transition and globalization is to answer the question: does Russia have the right to an innovative path of development? This question is appropriate given the following circumstance. It is possible that one of the fundamental reasons for the transition to a global world order is that, on the one hand, the resource base of the planet is depleting, and on the other, the innovation process requires ever greater resource sacrifices. Under these conditions, the existence on Earth of several national centers development is impossible. Indirect evidence in favor of this assumption is the death of one of the two superpowers in the 20th century. Apparently, someone had to step up anyway to provide limited resources for the benefit of world progress. If this is so, then the launch of a parallel innovation process on the territory of Russia poses a threat to all humanity, because we (the people of the Earth) risk wasting resources, not solving the environmental problem and dying. In other words, the question is again on the agenda: is a multipolar world possible today or should it be unipolar?
The next theoretical and practical problem requiring discussion is the following. If the nature of economic life changes radically, what changes do the market and the plan undergo? The market and planning mechanisms of an agrarian society are radically different from those in an industrial society. Consequently, post-industrial market and planned relations are just as different from industrial ones. Most likely, capitalism, which has won today on a world-historical scale, is fading into historical oblivion. Naturally, we are primarily interested in whether, at the post-industrial stage, the fundamental connection remains between the country’s transition to an innovative development path and the strengthening of the plan to the detriment of the market.
Globalization leads to the decline of nation states, which means government regulation. This means that the state’s ability to influence the innovation process is weakening. In this regard, the problem of the unprofitability of the innovative development path for Russia deserves attention. This formulation of the question may seem strange. However, let's take a closer look at the situation. Innovations do not pay off immediately. Initially, they require gratuitous investments. Suppose Russia, strengthening the planning mechanism, mobilizes significant resources for scientific and technological development. When these costs are translated into a specific result, it will be appropriated by global network structures and used for their benefit. The peculiarity of the network organization of the economy is that there is no need to remove research centers and specialists. It is enough to include them in the global network, and they will be, as it were, “cut out” from the national economy as long as they produce results. Then they are disconnected from the network and they again feed on the resources of the nation state. As a result, Russia may find itself in a situation where, at the expense of its standard of living, it will pay for progress, but not implement it or benefit from it. Here, in a gradual form, what happened simultaneously as a result of the democratization of Russia, when the West gained access to many technologies created in the Soviet Union, can be fulfilled.
Related to this problem is the problem of petrodollars. Russia, like other oil exporters, sells it at a high price. These petrodollars can, using the nomenclature-volume mechanism, be pumped into the innovation sector, infringing on current consumption. However, let’s say we decide not to take the innovative path and spend petrodollars on consumption. The question arises: “Is the hat suitable for Senka?” Perhaps inflated oil prices are depriving the world's development centers of the necessary resources for fundamental technological breakthroughs. Then the world's oil and gas exporters become enemies of world progress.
So, the first complication of the simple case of the transition of an industrial national economy to an innovative path of development is associated with the beginning of the post-industrial stage.
1.1.3. The second complicating circumstance: the peculiarities of Russia
The second complication is due to the fact that we are moving to an innovative path of development not in general, but in Russia. Accordingly, this transition will be influenced by all the features of the Russian economy. And here again the problem of the presence or absence of a special path for Russia comes up.
The specificity of Russia consists of a) harsh natural and climatic conditions; b) large territory and high transport costs; c) a certain historically accumulated material and technical base, more backward than in developed countries; d) a drugged, demotivated, desocialized and declining population.
These four circumstances increase costs and reduce the results of economic activity in Russia. If we proceed from the fact that the implementation of large innovation projects requires a planned mobilization of resources, then, taking into account the aforesaid specifics of Russia, we obtain the following.
Firstly, due to a less favorable cost-benefit ratio than in the average industrial country, our resource base for ensuring innovation is lower.
Secondly, due to the same unfavorable cost-benefit ratio, the need for resources to provide comparable innovations is higher.
Also, the combination of a meager resource base and an increased need for resources to ensure innovation means only one thing - a higher role of the plan compared to the market than in the conventional, average country. But if the role of the plan in our country again increases significantly, this will cause an economic conflict with the West. In addition, the question arises: do we even have enough resources for innovative development? During the period of industrialization, we needed a colossal effort from everyone for this transition. Maybe at the post-industrial stage the price of transition is so high that we, with our Russian cost-benefit ratio, cannot pay it at all?
The authors of the already mentioned monograph “The Path to the 21st Century...” argue that Russia for the period until 2028 could set a priority development task for 12–16 macrotechnologies. But at the same time, they also provide data that the United States has 20–22 macrotechnologies, and Japan has only 7. This suggests that only a very rich country can develop macrotechnology. Only rich country It is possible, using its resources and exploiting the periphery, to invest in macrotechnology for a long time without receiving a return.
Thus, the second complicating circumstance of the transition to innovative development is considered - the peculiarities of Russia.
1.1.4. Third complicating factor: Russia’s peripheral position
Let us consider the third complicating circumstance – the peripheral position of our country in the global division of labor. With the exception of Soviet period we have always been a second-tier country. And now, after almost twenty years of market development, we have again acquired the status of a second or even third tier country. What follows from this situation of ours?
Firstly, it is unclear what the nature of the post-industrial transition is for a peripheral country. Let's say a certain peripheral country supplies the world's development centers with bananas or oil. At first it provided these centers as centers industrial development, now it supplies them as centers of post-industrial development. Does this mean that this country - a supplier of bananas or oil - has become post-industrial? Does this mean anything for its transition to an innovative development path?
Secondly, periphery countries supply resources to world development centers on the basis of unequal exchange. Consequently, our transition to an innovative type of development is further burdened by the fact that from the resources that Russia has and which can be mobilized for scientific and technological development, it is necessary to subtract the “tribute” paid by Russia in favor of the West. And this, in turn, further aggravates the dilemma - either the market, but without innovation, or innovation, but without the market.
One might get the impression that this point contradicts the question posed above: does Russia, along with other resource suppliers, have the right to draw from world centers the resources they need for development due to high oil prices? In fact, there is no contradiction here, since this is not a statement, but a question. And besides, the situation is determined by the goal that the country sets for itself. One goal is to maximize consumption at the expense of innovation; another goal is the transition to an innovative path of development and the entire burden of responsibility arising from such a goal.
Thirdly, Russia’s new peripheral position again brings us back to the question of the criteria for innovative and non-innovative types of development. The fact is that the level and nature of innovative development are set by the countries of the center. They act as a standard to which the periphery is forced to equal. That is, we do not decide what innovative development is and how long it will take us to move towards it. We just fit into the trajectory given from the outside. But the more backward country, the greater the amount of resources per unit of time it is forced to mobilize to achieve this standard set by the center.
And here again the need for a sharp strengthening of the plan looms for us.
1.1.5. Fourth complicating factor: global crisis
When the crisis arrived, opponents of the market rejoiced and immediately declared that this was not just a cyclical crisis of overproduction, but a systemic crisis of all capitalism. Lovers of capitalism shrugged their shoulders and said that the crisis was normal and good; It's like a cleansing shower for a healthy market body.
At the moment, it seems that supporters of the systemic crisis of capitalism were hasty in their assessments. It was already noted above that at the post-industrial stage capitalism will disappear. His death must be accompanied by systemic crisis processes. However, this does not appear to apply to the 2008–2009 crisis. But even if we admit that this is not a systemic, but a cyclical crisis of overproduction, the following questions still remain relevant.
Firstly, is there an adequate model of the business cycle in economic science today?
Secondly, if we recognize that the world is moving to a post-industrial stage of development, then even the ordinary capitalist cycle can no longer be ordinary. There must be some kind of post-industrial modification in its mechanism. For example, A.A. Porokhovsky notes the special influence of ICT on the modern crisis. A.V. Buzgalin considers the modern crisis to be the result of the activities of TNCs that have gone beyond the control of individual national states. V.T. Ryazanov believes that globalization “leads to the creation of international networks operating under private control and spread over several continents. The increased complexity of the system requires greater control accuracy. Meanwhile, although it is based on the system of international institutions and relationships that have developed in recent decades, they are still based on the same market principles.” In any case, even if there is a cycle model that is adequate to the industrial stage, it requires development in the conditions of the post-industrial transition.
From book Economic theories and goals of society author Galbraith John KennethChapter I Functions economic system and Economic Theory Chapter II The Neoclassical Model Chapter III The Neoclassical Model II: The State Chapter IV Consumption and the Household Concept Chapter V General theory high level of development Part II. Market
From the book ABC of Economics author Gwartney James DPart III Economic progress and the role of the state The state, which protects law and order and provides benefits that society cannot obtain “on the market,” contributes to the well-being of the entire country, BUT... The state is not a plug for every barrel. It can't be
From the book Crisis Management author Babushkina Elena44. Innovative potential of enterprises, its role in anti-crisis management The process of formation of an innovation system is influenced by the level of innovative potential of the enterprise, i.e. its ability to achieve its goals. The implementation of these goals acts as
From the book Banks and Money [SI] author Simonov Nikolay SergeevichCHAPTER 11 Welcome to state capitalism! - Transition to a new model of economic development, expansion of state banks, creation of state corporations At the beginning of December 1998, 1 barrel of Brent oil cost only $9.55. Over the next 10 years, prices for this
From the book Russia's Innovation Path by Danilin PavelPavel Danilin, Natalya Kryshtal Innovation path
From the book Innovative Management: A Study Guide author Mukhamedyarov A. M.Chapter 1 Innovation and the innovation process 1.1. Innovation as a source of meeting social needs Scientific and technological progress, especially its modern stage– scientific and technological revolution, promotes the development of mass production of many types
From the book PEOPLE, PEOPLE, NATION... author Gorodnikov Sergey1.4. Innovation process as an object of management The characteristics of the innovation process as an object of management include three aspects: 1) disclosure of the content of the innovation cycle; 2) a clear understanding of innovations in terms of their substantive (material) content; 3)
From the book Mechanisms and methods of regulation in the conditions of transition to innovative development author author unknown4. The state of the tribal nobility and the social state The confrontation between the ruling class of the tribal nobility and the tribal public power, which still retained great influence, turned out to be the main internal reason for the development of the original state power
From the book Your Neighbor is a Millionaire by Danko William D.4.5. Cluster policy as an innovative tool for the development of entrepreneurship The fundamental mechanism for the comprehensive development of entrepreneurship is the formation of a system of plans that corresponds to the set objectives. The totality of such plans and
From the book Innovation Management author Makhovikova Galina AfanasyevnaTaxes, government... government again Many high-income Americans, both the NSA and the NSA, are concerned about the actions of federal government. A private individual is powerless before this force beyond his control. Dr. South indicated that he feared government action in four
From the book New Russian Doctrine: It's Time to Spread Your Wings author Bagdasarov Roman VladimirovichGalina Afanasyevna Makhovikova, Nadezhda Filippovna Efimova Innovative
From the book Strategies for the development of scientific and production enterprises of the aerospace complex. Innovation path author Baranov Vyacheslav Viktorovich8.1. Innovative potential of an enterprise The readiness and ability of a particular innovative enterprise to implement for the first time and reproduce an innovation characterizes its innovative potential. Innovation potential (state, industry, enterprise) –
From the book Risk Management, Audit and internal control author Filatov Alexander AlexandrovichThe peculiarity of the transition to an innovative type of development is that Russia will have to simultaneously solve the problems of both catching up and advanced development. In conditions of global competition and an open economy, it is impossible to catch up with the developed countries of the world in terms of prosperity and efficiency without ensuring advanced breakthrough development in those sectors of the Russian economy that determine its specialization in the world economy. This approach requires implementing strategies in four directions simultaneously.
The first direction is to ensure the use of global competitive advantages Russia in the fields of energy, transport, ecology, and the agricultural sector. This should occur in the following areas: ensuring the stability of energy supplies to the world's largest consumers of energy resources; formation of modern transport infrastructure, use of the transit potential of the Russian economy, closure of cargo and passenger flows to Russian transport corridors; production and export of environmentally friendly products, import substitution in domestic markets for livestock products.
The second direction is the formation of a powerful scientific and technological complex that ensures Russia’s global specialization in high-tech markets: nanotechnology, nuclear energy, aviation, shipbuilding, rocket and space technologies, software.
The third direction is structural diversification of the economy based on increasing the competitiveness of the processing industry, high-tech industries and the “knowledge economy” by: improving conditions entrepreneurial activity and creating favorable investment climate; creating mechanisms to ensure the innovative activity of companies; formation and development of national financial infrastructure focused on long-term financing investments, growth of capitalization of companies, reduction of investment risks and costs for investors; development of production infrastructure, including its transport, energy and information components.
The fourth direction is the formation of competitive human capital, primarily through ensuring: the availability of quality educational, healthcare and cultural services; high professional and territorial mobility of labor resources, increasing housing affordability; improving the quality of the environment and ecological conditions of human life.
When transitioning to an innovative type of development in Russia, it is necessary careful study experience of other countries in order to more effectively allocate available resources. In developed countries, the high-tech complex determines economic growth and “pulls” the rest of the economy with it, forcing it to adapt to high technologies.
The transition to the trajectory of sustainable development in countries such as the USA, Japan, the countries of the European Union, and a number of countries in Southeast Asia was achieved based on the expansion of innovation processes in real sector economy. The state innovation policy of a particular country is a composition of measures of various directions and has significant national specifics (Table 6.2).
Table 6.2
Main directions of state innovation policy in the world1
1 See: Zverev A.V. Formation of a national innovation system: global experience and Russian prospects. Abstract of the dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Economics. M., 2009. P. 26.
End of table. 6.2
| Direction innovative politicians | Specifics | Countries |
| Stimulating innovative cooperation between business and science (universities) within the country | Stimulating symmetrical convergence between universities and corporations | USA, Finland |
| Large government investments in science and innovation and attraction of national private capital | Israel, Finland |
|
| Stimulating innovative activity of the private sector with the attraction of foreign capital into the innovation sphere | UK, Ireland, China, Korea, Malaysia, India, Israel |
|
| Stimulating innovation initiatives in the scientific sector | Germany, Japan, New Zealand, Denmark |
|
| Integration into international innovation networks | Comprehensive integration | Finland, Israel, Netherlands, China |
| Technological specialization | Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, India |
|
| Establishing internal innovation networks | Creation special conditions for the formation of connections in the innovation sphere | USA, Norway, Ireland |
| Stimulating the initiative of national regions | France, Germany, Finland |
|
| Formation of a national innovation system | Restructuring the public sector of science | Bulgaria, Poland, Lithuania |
| Initiating the integration of science and education | Latvia, Estonia, Czech Republic |
|
| Involving small and medium-sized businesses in the innovation sector | Romania, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Latvia, Estonia, Turkey, Chile |
|
| Determination of priority export directions in the field of high technologies | Czech Republic, Romania, Chile, Türkiye |
In the world, innovative activity is stimulated by various benefits and preferences, which are absolutely necessary when developing high-tech products. They act flexibly, selectively in the form of deferments, tax credits, accelerated depreciation(Table 6.3).
Table 6.3
Tax benefits for R&D in developed countries1
A study of global experience shows that:
a) the key factor in increasing the competitiveness of the country, its development towards an effective national innovation system (NIS) is the state innovation policy, aimed at creating a favorable economic climate for the implementation of innovation processes (including at the regional level) and being a link between academic science and production;
b) the choice of the main vector of its movement is fundamentally important in the formation of innovation policy.
World practice allows us to identify two main models of state innovation policy: a model of innovation policy focused on the implementation of scientific and technical programs and projects of national importance. The main goal of the model is to encourage the development of innovative areas that are of priority importance for the country; an innovation policy model focused on the dissemination of scientific and technical knowledge. the main objective such a policy is the development of new technologies, expansion of technological capabilities of industries and sectors of the economy. Most often this concerns the improvement of innovation infrastructure, the education system and professional training.
Depending on the innovation policy pursued, the countries of the world are divided into three groups. Countries focused on leadership in science in the implementation of large-scale targeted projects covering all stages of the innovation cycle, as a rule, with a significant share of scientific and innovative potential in the military sphere (USA, UK, France); Countries focused on creating a favorable innovation environment, with the possibility of optimizing the entire economy (Germany, Sweden, Switzerland); Countries that stimulate innovation by developing innovation infrastructure, ensuring receptivity to the achievements of the world scientific and technological progress, coordination of actions of various sectors in the field of science and technology (Japan, South Korea).
The formation of the NIS occurs individually for each country and is determined by the socio-economic relations that have developed in it and its national characteristics. Thus, in Finland, emphasis was placed on economic diversification; in France - to create small technology firms; in the USA - to support the restructuring of the national economy. However, in each specific case, individual approaches and tools that have proven their effectiveness in other countries can be used.
Analysis of experience in the development of innovative processes in developed and developing countries allows us to identify key patterns in the creation and development of NIS in these countries: the growth of integration of science, education, production and the market, which leads to an increase in the volume and intensity of internal relationships and interaction between NIS elements; The purpose of the NIS is to ensure dynamic development countries by increasing the innovative activity of economic entities in the country; NIS of a number of countries owe their high efficiency to various factors, among which the most significant is the established NIS infrastructure; the country's innovative development is not necessarily based on its own scientific, technical and innovation base; at the initial stages of the formation of NIS, it is possible to acquire, copy and “assimilate” foreign developments (example of China and Japan); significant strengthening of innovation-oriented investments; increasing the role of regions and individual territorial interregional complexes in the development of NIS.
“The only real alternative to this course of events (as we, in fact, previously defined it) is a strategy for the country’s innovative development, based on one of our main competitive advantages - the realization of human potential, the most effective use of people’s knowledge and skills for the constant improvement of technology , economic results, the life of society as a whole.
But I want to especially emphasize and want everyone to understand this: the pace of innovative development must be radically higher than what we have today.
Yes, this path is much more difficult. It is more ambitious and requires maximum efforts from the state, business, and the entire society. But in reality we have no choice. What choice can there be between a chance to achieve leadership positions in the economy and social development, in ensuring the security of the country - and the loss of positions in the economy, in the field of security, and ultimately the loss of sovereignty?
Russia should become the most attractive country to live in. And I am confident that we will be able to do this without sacrificing the present for the sake of the so-called bright future, but on the contrary, improving people’s well-being day after day.
The transition to an innovative development path is associated primarily with large-scale investments in human capital.
Human development is both the main goal and a necessary condition for progress modern society. This is our absolute national priority today and in the long term.
The future of Russia, our successes depend on the education and health of people, on their desire for self-improvement and the use of their skills and talents. And what I am saying now was not said on the eve of the presidential elections, this is not an election campaign slogan - this is an urgent need for the development of the country. The future of Russia will depend on the motivation for innovative behavior of citizens and on the return that each person’s work brings.
Development national systems Education therefore becomes a key element of global competition and one of the most important life values. And Russia has everything: rich traditions and the potential to make our education - from school to university - one of the best in the world.
The educational system must incorporate the most modern knowledge and technologies. In the coming years, it is necessary to ensure a transition to education according to new generation standards that meet the requirements of a modern innovative economy. The Ministry of Education is currently working on these standards. I want this to be a topic of discussion in society at large. These should be modern standards.
The sphere of education should become the basis for expanding scientific activity. In turn, science also has significant educational potential. It is necessary to provide assistance to talented young people who are active in research activities, to help them successfully integrate into the scientific and innovative environment.
Today, despite the fact that we rank third in the world in terms of the number of scientists and are already among the leaders in government spending on scientific activities, in terms of its results we are far from the forefront. This is a direct consequence of the weak interaction between scientific and educational organizations, government, business, insufficient attraction of private investment in science. Investments in research and development by business should be stimulated by the state and increase. […]
We are faced with new and more complex economic policy challenges than before. the main problem of today's Russian economy is its extreme inefficiency. Labor productivity in Russia remains unacceptably low. The same labor costs as in the most developed countries bring in Russia several times less return. And this is doubly dangerous in the context of growing global competition and increasing costs for skilled labor and energy resources.
The implementation of an innovative development scenario will allow us to achieve a dramatic increase in labor productivity. In the main sectors of the Russian economy, at least a fourfold increase in this indicator must be achieved over 12 years.
In solving the problem of radically increasing the efficiency of our economy, we must create incentives and conditions for the advancement of a number of areas.
This is, first of all, the formation of a national innovation system. It should be based on the entire set of public and private institutions that support innovation.
This is the consolidation and expansion of our natural advantages. Development of sectors of the economy that are basic to us, including deep processing of natural resources, use of energy, transport and agricultural capabilities of Russia.
This is a large-scale modernization of existing production facilities in all sectors of the economy. To do this, we will need a fundamentally different quality of enterprise management, and a change in almost all technologies used in Russia, almost the entire fleet of machinery and equipment. Moreover, the best technologies are, in most cases, the most energy-efficient, energy-saving technologies, the most economical and environmentally friendly.
The most important direction is the development of new sectors of global competitiveness, primarily in high-tech industries that are leaders in the “knowledge economy” - aerospace, shipbuilding, and energy. As well as the development of information, medical and other new technologies.
We certainly need further construction of new and modernization of existing roads, train stations, ports, airports, power plants and communication systems.
It is extremely important to develop the financial infrastructure to a level adequate to the growing needs of the economy. Ultimately, Russia should develop into one of the world's financial centers. […]
A step-by-step plan must be made in all directions!
Russia has proven more than once that it can do what others think is impossible. In the post-war years, we made an industrial breakthrough and were the first to explore space. And over the past few years they have recovered, confidently recovered from the chaos of the 90s, after economic devastation and the breakdown of the entire previous way of life. […] But, I repeat, today we are setting a much more ambitious goal - to achieve a qualitative change in life, a qualitative change in the country, its economy and social sphere.
Russia has hardworking and educated people - people who have the desire to always be first; in the national character of our people is the habit of winning, the desire to be free and independent.
Russia has colossal Natural resources and rich scientific potential. Russia has a clear understanding of how and with what resources we will solve our new large-scale, grandiose tasks.
And there is not a single serious reason that would not allow us to achieve our goals, not one!
I am absolutely confident that we will ensure that our country continues to strengthen its position as one of the world leaders, and that our citizens live in dignity.”
Speech by Vladimir Putin at an extended meeting of the State Council “On the development strategy of Russia until 2020”, February 8, 2008 Moscow, Kremlin, in Sat.: Russia 2020. The main tasks of the country’s development, M., “Europe”, p. 14-15, 18-19 and 29.
4. Innovative path of development of Russia
For the first time, the innovative path of development of Russia was declared by the Government of the Russian Federation in 2002 in the document “Fundamentals of the policy of the Russian Federation in the field of development of science and technology until 2010 and further prospects,” approved by decree of the President of the Russian Federation of March 30, 2002. This document states that the goal of state policy in the field of development of science and technology is the transition to an innovative path of development of the country based on selected priorities19. Having solved in recent years the tasks of creating an institutional basis for a market economy and post-crisis restoration of production, ensuring macroeconomic stability, Russia, on the one hand, has the opportunity to set ambitious strategic development goals, and on the other, it is faced with the need to overcome the identified challenges.
4.1 Innovative development path: concept, objectives and main characteristics
The innovative path of the country's development is a path based on the knowledge and scientific achievements, thanks to which Russia must change its raw material orientation in global trade by 2020, as indicated in the “Concept of long-term socio-economic development of the Russian Federation.” Russia should enter the top five leaders in global economic development and trade on the world market. commodity market predominantly knowledge-intensive high-tech products.
Achieving this goal involves:
Russia's achievement of welfare standards corresponding to developed countries of the world (including average per capita GDP at parity purchasing power– 30 thousand US dollars in 2020 and 40-50 thousand US dollars in 2030);
ensuring Russia's scientific and technological leadership in areas that ensure its competitive advantages and national security;
ensuring Russia's specialization in the world economy on the basis of advanced research developments and high technologies. Russia must occupy a significant, at least 10 percent, place in the markets of high-tech goods and services in 4-6 or more positions;
strengthening Russia's position in the formation of global energy infrastructure;
implementation of global competitive advantages in the field of transport and transit flows;
transforming Russia into one of the world's leading financial centers, possessing an independent national financial infrastructure and ensuring Russia's leading position in the financial markets CIS countries, EurAsEC, Central and of Eastern Europe;
formation of effective democratic institutions, influential and active institutions of civil society20.
The innovative type of development has a number of qualitative and quantitative characteristics that correspond to the development parameters of the leading countries of the world:
diversification of the economy, in the structure of which the leading role is transferred to “knowledge industries” and high-tech industries. The share of the high-tech sector and knowledge economy in GDP should be at least 17-20% (2006 – 10.5%), the contribution of innovative factors to annual GDP growth should be at least 2.0-3 percentage points (2006 – 1.3 );
high innovative activity of corporations associated with the development of new markets, updating the product range, mastering new technologies, and creating new forms of business organization. The share of industrial enterprises carrying out technological innovations should increase to 40-50% (2005 - 9.3%), the share of innovative products in industrial output - to 25-35% (2005 - 2.5 percent);
the presence of an effective national innovation system, intensification of research and development, both fundamental and applied. Domestic research and development costs should rise to 3.5-4% of GDP (2006 - 1% of GDP);
creating conditions for the effective use of skilled labor and improving the quality of human capital, the presence of an effective, result-oriented social infrastructure. The average monthly salary in the economy should exceed 2000 US dollars in 2020 (2006 - 391 US dollars), expenditures on education from public and private sources - at least 5-6% of GDP (2006 - 4.6%), healthcare - 6-6.5% (2006 - 3.9 percent);
increasing the efficiency of using primary resources, primarily labor and energy. Labor productivity should be almost doubled, energy intensity should be reduced by no less than 40 percent; an effective system for the specification and protection of property rights, including intellectual property, and the creation of a developed venture capital market21.
The peculiarity of the transition to an innovative type of development is that Russia will have to simultaneously solve the problems of both catching up and advanced development. In conditions of global competition and an open economy, it is impossible to catch up with the developed countries of the world in terms of prosperity and efficiency without ensuring advanced breakthrough development in those sectors of the Russian economy that determine its specialization in the world economy. This approach requires the implementation of strategies simultaneously in five directions.
The first direction is to ensure the use of Russia’s global competitive advantages in the fields of energy, transport, ecology, and the agricultural sector.
The second direction is the formation of a powerful scientific and technological complex that ensures Russia’s global specialization in high-tech markets.
The third direction is structural diversification of the economy based on increasing the competitiveness of the processing industry, high-tech industries and the “knowledge economy”.
The fourth direction is the creation of economic and social conditions for the realization of human creative potential and the formation of competitive human capital.
The fifth direction is the development of democracy and ensuring the protection of individual rights and freedoms.
Only by implementing the development formula “democracy - people - technology” and translating it into the everyday practice of society, will Russia be able to realize its potential opportunities and take its rightful place among the leading world powers.
4. 3 Scenario of innovative development
This scenario reflects the use of the competitive advantages of the Russian economy not only in traditional ones (energy, transport, agricultural sector), but also in new knowledge-intensive sectors and the knowledge economy, and the transformation of innovative factors into the main source of economic growth. It provides:
creation of an effective national innovation system and deployment of long-term programs and projects that ensure Russia's leading position in the markets of high-tech goods and services;
deep modernization of social infrastructure, including education, healthcare, and the housing sector, ensuring a significant increase in the quality of human capital and living standards of the population;
accelerated development of economic institutions that determine the protection of property rights, increased competitiveness of markets, reduced investment and business risks, reduced administrative barriers and improved quality public services, development of new companies, development of public-private partnerships;
modernization of infrastructure sectors of the economy - transport, electricity, with a significantly higher increase in energy saving efficiency than in the second option;
the creation of new regional centers of economic development in the Volga region, the Far East and the South of Russia, overcoming the backlog of depressed regions;
development of a multi-vector model of integration into the world market, based on the expansion of foreign economic relations with the USA, the European Union, China, India and the formation of new, deeper forms of integration and cooperation with the CIS countries.
The implementation of this scenario makes it possible to achieve the level of socio-economic development characteristic of developed post-industrial countries by increasing the competitiveness of the Russian economy, its structural diversification and increased efficiency.
The innovative development scenario will be accompanied by active structural changes, supported by a significant increase in the efficiency of resource use. The share of the innovation sector in GDP will increase from 10.5% in 2006 to 18.9% in 2020 (in 2006 prices) with a decrease in the share oil and gas sector from 19.7% to 12.1 percent.
This structural maneuver will be ensured by an increase in innovation activity and supported by increased spending: on R&D (from all sources of financing) - up to 2.8% of GDP in 2015 and 4% of GDP in 2020, on education - up to 5% of GDP in 2015 and 5.5% of GDP in 2020 (including government spending reaching 4.5% of GDP). With these parameters for the development of the “knowledge economy”, Russia becomes quite competitive in comparison with European and Asian partners, and is ensured integrated development national innovation system. Development of the social services sector on the principles of public-private partnership, ensuring an increase in the share of private and autonomous institutions in the field of social services for the population will also have a positive impact on the quality of economic growth22.
4.4 Stages of innovative development
The innovative development of the Russian economy in the period 2008-2020 should be divided into three stages, differing in conditions, factors and risks of socio-economic development. The macroeconomic characteristics of each of these stages in comparison with the scenarios of energy and raw materials (II) and inertial (I) development are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Main macroeconomic indicators of development scenarios (growth rates, percent)
| 2006 | Average annual values | 2020/2007, % | ||||
| 2008-2012 | 2013-2017 | 2018-2020 | ||||
| GDP | 3 | 6,7 | 6,1 | 6,6 | 6,4 | 123 |
| 2 | 6,0 | 5,5 | 4,7 | 102 | ||
| 1 | 4,5 | 3,3 | 3,1 | 61 | ||
| Real disposable income of the population | 3 | 10,2 | 8,3 | 7,2 | 6,7 | 156 |
| 2 | 8,1 | 5,7 | 4,7 | 123 | ||
| 1 | 6,8 | 4,3 | 3,7 | 91 | ||
| Retail turnover | 3 | 13,9 | 8,7 | 6,5 | 6,3 | 150 |
| 2 | 8,6 | 5,3 | 4,5 | 124 | ||
| 1 | 6,7 | 4,4 | 3,7 | 91 | ||
| Investments | 3 | 13,7 | 11 | 10,7 | 9,6 | 270 |
| 2 | 10,9 | 8,8 | 6,6 | 211 | ||
| 1 | 5,6 | 4,2 | 4,1 | 83 | ||
| Export, billion dollars | 3 | 303,9 | 348 | 439 | 564 | 60 |
| 2 | 347 | 433 | 538 | 51 | ||
| 1 | 331 | 377 | 437 | 21 | ||
| Imports, billion dollars | 3 | 164,7 | 340 | 503 | 669 | 195 |
| 2 | 342 | 484 | 603 | 163 | ||
| 1 | 316 | 376 | 446 | 92 | ||
| Inflation | 3 | 9 | 5,6 | 4,5 | 3,3 | 85 |
| 2 | 6,2 | 4,8 | 3,4 | 90 | ||
| 1 | 7,5 | 6,1 | 4,0 | 111 | ||
| Energy intensity | 3 | -2,8 | -3,6 | -3,9 | -3,7 | -39 |
| 2 | -3,4 | -2,8 | -2,2 | -32 | ||
| 1 | -2,8 | -1,7 | -1,6 | -24 | ||
| Electrical capacity | 3 | -2,4 | -2,1 | -2,3 | -2,70 | -27 |
| 2 | -1,9 | -1,3 | -1,3 | -18 | ||
| 1 | -1,6 | -0,7 | -0,4 | -12 | ||
| Labor productivity | 3 | 6,2 | 6,3 | 7,5 | 7,1 | 138 |
| 2 | 6,2 | 6,5 | 5,8 | 119 | ||
| 1 | 4,8 | 4,3 | 3,9 | 75 | ||
The first stage (2008-2012) is the creation of an institutional environment for an innovative economy, the modernization of education and healthcare, the launch of development projects in high-tech and infrastructure sectors.
formation of a regulatory framework and regulators of corporate innovation activity;
structural modernization of education, health care and housing and communal services, ensuring affordable housing for the bulk of the population; overcoming the trend towards a relative decrease in spending on health care and education (in particular, spending on education decreases from 4.6% of GDP in 2006 to 4.4% in 2010 and in 2012 returns to the level of 4.6% of GDP);
taking measures to solve environmental problems (including for urban areas: recycling of production and consumption waste, providing the population with high-quality drinking water, etc.);
reforming and modernizing fundamental and applied science, creating an effective innovation infrastructure (increasing R&D spending from private and public sources from 1.0% of GDP in 2006 to 1.3% of GDP in 2010 and 1.8% in 2012);
the beginning of active modernization of high-tech sectors of the economy, the creation of new technological foundations; increasing the competitiveness of mass medium-tech industries (automotive industry, food industry, industrial building materials, metallurgical and chemical industries) will help strengthen the position of domestic products in the domestic market and reverse the dynamics of imports (the average annual growth rate of imports in physical terms should decrease from 26-27% in 2006-2007 to 7% in 2011-2012);
maintaining macroeconomic equilibrium, ensuring a stable ruble exchange rate and reducing inflation to 5% per year by the end of the period;
implementation of large-scale projects for the development of transport, port and energy infrastructure, innovation centers, including using funds investment fund, special mechanisms economic zones industrial-production, port and technology-implementation type, concession agreements;
deployment of active work of state financial development institutions, which, subject to sufficient capitalization growth, can almost double credit support for mechanical engineering industries, small and medium-sized businesses in 2008-2012 and increase the volume of external private investment resources attracted into the economy by 10-12 percent;
creation of new economic centers in the South of Russia, in Eastern Siberia and in the Far East;
development of public management based on results at the federal and regional levels, introduction of project-targeted management mechanisms.
Tab. 2. Target macroeconomic indicators of the first stage (2012 to 2007, %)
The second stage (2013-2017) is the transition of the economy to a new technological base based on promising developments in the field of information and communication, bio- and nanotechnologies.
The main priorities of socio-economic development at this stage include:
creating conditions for intensive technological renewal of Russian corporations on the basis of new (including resource-saving and environmentally friendly) technologies, expanding positions Russian companies in global markets for high-tech goods and services, consolidating Russia’s specialization and competence in high-tech markets;
ensuring rational specialization of Russian science, expanding the advanced positions of Russian science in priority areas scientific research;
creation of a network of competitive centers (universities) higher education world class;
multi-vector integration of Russia into world economy based on the implementation of large energy and transport projects;
increasing exports of transport services and information and communication services.
Table 3. Target macroeconomic indicators of the second stage
(2017 to 2012, %)
The third stage (after 2018) is the consolidation of Russia’s leading position in the world economy and development in the innovative economy mode.
Development priorities:
accelerated development of human capital, ensuring leading positions in the level of education and healthcare, while increasing public and private spending on education and healthcare to a level comparable to developed countries;
development of environmentally friendly production;
the formation of workable economic associations in the Eurasian economic space with the participation and leading role of Russia;
achieving stable demographic indicators;
introduction of new forms of government, adapted to strengthen the role of global corporations and regions;
creating conditions for the sustainable and balanced development of the research and development sector, ensuring the expanded reproduction of knowledge, matching its level with the needs of the economy, and maintaining high levels of R&D expenses.
Table 4. Target macroeconomic indicators of the third stage (2020 to 2017, %)
Development prospects beyond 2020 are characterized by high uncertainty. The accumulated potential of knowledge and capital, corresponding to the advanced economies of the world, will determine the completion of the stage of catch-up growth, which creates the preconditions for reducing the pace GDP growth by 2030 to 4.5-5%. As a result of the increased propensity to consume and the intensification of structural shifts in favor of the service economy and intangible assets, one can expect stabilization and even some reduction in the rate of accumulation.
After 2020 Russian economy is entering a development phase in conditions of declining physical volumes of oil and petroleum products exports and declining oil production, while stabilizing gas export volumes. Under these conditions, the load on innovative high- and medium-tech sectors of the economy and the service sector, as the main driving forces of economic growth and maintaining balance, increases sharply foreign trade.
At the turn of 2025-2030, we can expect the formation of a new technological innovation wave, which will create a new impetus for the development of the economy, especially the knowledge and service economy. The role of environmental and climatic barriers to growth will sharply increase, creating at the same time for Russia, due to the diversity of its natural resources, new unique development opportunities, subject to a significant reduction in the environmental intensity of the economy.
In 2020-2025, the implementation of new infrastructure projects related to the development of the Arctic and Eastern Siberia (including the implementation of the Sevsib and Subpolar Urals projects) will fully develop, which will initiate an increase in investment in the economy and create new poles of regional development.
3. Quality management Management of any processes is a circular cycle: planning (plan, P) - implementation ("do, D) - control (check, C) - control action (action, L). The quality management process can also be represented as a sequence of passage these stages.The PDCA cycle ensures continuous monitoring and improvement of production quality levels.Management follows...
Management, regardless of its specific purpose, can be described using a number of parameters, the number and composition of which depend on the purposes of this description. The most general idea of an organization as an object of management can be obtained by having information about its purpose, legal basis, location, resources, history of creation and development, image in business circles and among consumers. Besides...