2024 (21), №3

Theoretical Foundations for Modernizing Russia’s Innovation Policy to Ensure Technological Independence

30.09.202426 ноября, 2024Без комментариев

For citation: 

Golova, I. M. (2024). Theoretical Foundations for Modernizing Russia’s Innovation Policy to Ensure Technological Independence. AlterEconomics, 21(3), 431–451. https://doi.org/10.31063/AlterEconomics/2024.21-3.1

Abstract:

Modernizing Russia’s innovation policy is crucial for achieving technological independence and transitioning to an innovative development paradigm. However, this transformation faces challenges stemming from Russia’s distinct innovation landscape and socio-economic conditions. This article identifies key directions for transforming Russia’s innovation policy and mechanisms to support its technological independence. The article reviews the evolution of theoretical perspectives on innovation policy within the broader system of socio-economic management, highlighting its key stages and challenges. Special attention is given to the methodological problems of aligning innovation support with the country’s need for technological independence. It also examines the intersection of neo-Schumpeterian economics and the concept of sustainable growth, which now dominate theoretical thought on innovation policy. The author defines modern innovation policy and outlines current approaches to its formation and implementation. A transformative policy, integrating efforts to stimulate innovation, enhance quality, and restructure socio-technical systems, is proposed as the best path for Russia. This type of policy is particularly important given the existing challenges in the innovation and production sectors. The article also identifies priority areas for implementing this transformative innovation policy, which will help lay the foundation for Russia’s technological independence. The results of this research can guide improvements in the public management of innovation processes. Future research will focus on further refining methodological approaches and improving the organizational systems involved in innovation management.

PDF full
Downloaded: 4

Irina M. Golova — Dr. Sci. (Econ.), Head of the Sector of Social Innovation, Institute of Economics of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1059-4271 (29, Moskovskaya St., Ekaterinburg, 620014, Russian Federation; e- mail: irina_golova@mail.ru).

Aganbegyan, A. G. (2023). “Silicon Valleys” — innovation zones in the USA, China, EU, Russia and other countries. Ekonomika nauki [Economics of Science], 9 (2), 8–19. https://doi.org/10.22394/2410-132X-2023-9-2-8-19 (In Russ.)

Arrow, K. J. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity (pp. 609–625). Princeton University Press.

Borrás, S., & Edquist, C. (2019). Holistic Innovation Policy: Theoretical Foundations, Policy Problems, and Instrument Choices. Oxford University Press, 320. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198809807.001.0001

Crespi, F., Caravella, S., Menghini, M., & Salvatori, C. (2021). European Technological Sovereignty: An Emerging Framework for Policy Strategy. Intereconomics, 56 (6), 348−354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10272-021-1013-6

Edler, J., Blind, K., Kroll, H., & Schubert, T. (2023). Technology sovereignty as an emerging frame for innovation policy. Defining rationales, ends and means. Research Policy, 52 (6), 104765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104765

Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The Triple Helix: University-Industry-Government Innovation in Action. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203929605

Fagerberg, J. (2017). Innovation policy: rationales, lessons and challenges. Journal of Economic Surveys, 31 (2), 497–512. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12164

Garnsey, E., & Heffernan P. (2005). High-technology clustering through spin-out and attraction: the Cambridge case. Regional Studies, 39 (8), 1127–1144.

Ghazinoory, S., Nasri, S., Ameri, F., Montazer, G., & Shayan, A. (2020). Why do we need ‘Problem-oriented Innovation System (PIS)’ for solving macro-level societal problems? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 150, 119749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119749

Glazyev, S. Yu. (2020). On the creation of systems of strategic planning and management of scientific and technological development. Innovatsii [Innovations], (2), 14−23. (In Russ.)

Golova, I. M. (2021). Ecosystem Approach to Innovation Management in Russian Regions. Ekonomika regiona [Economy of regions], 17 (4), 1346–1360. https://doi.org/10.17059/ekon.reg.2021-4-21 (In Russ.)

Golova, I. M. (2024). Coordination of Regional Innovation Processes to Ensure the Technological Competitiveness of Russia. Ekonomika regiona [Economy of regions], 20 (1), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.17059/ekon.reg.2024-1-5 (In Russ.)

Golova, I. M., Krivenko, N. V., Bersenev, V. L., Krylov V. G., Epaneshnikova, D. S., Kropotina, O. E., Pykhov, P. A., & Trynov, A. V. (2022). Innovatsionnoe importozameshchenie kak drayver ekonomicheskoy bezopasnosti regiona [Innovative import substitution as a driver of regional economic security]. Ekaterinburg: Institute of Economics of the Ural branch of RAS, 248. (In Russ.)

Grillitsch, M., Hansen, T., Coenen, L., Miörner, J., & Moodysson, J. (2019). Innovation policy for system-wide transformation: The case of strategic innovation programmes (SIPs) in Sweden. Research Policy, 48 (4), 1048−1061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.004

Hekkert, M. P., Janssen, M. J., Wesseling, J. H., & Negro, S. O. (2020). Mission-oriented innovation systems. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 34, 76−79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.11.011

Khesin, E. (Ed.) (2020). Evropeyskiy soyuz v mirovom khozyaystve: problemy konkurentosposobnosti [The European Union in the World Economy: Competitiveness Issues]. Moscow: IMEMO. https://doi.org/10.20542/978-5-9535-0587-1 (In Russ.)

Komkov, N. I. (2023). Transformation and preserving the development potential of the russian economy. Problemy prognozirovaniya [Forecasting problems], (3), 173−183. https://doi.org/10.47711/0868-6351-198-173-183 (In Russ.)

Kuznets, S. (1973). Modern economic growth: findings and reflections. The American Economic Review, 63 (3), 247−258.

Larrue, P. (2021). The design and implementation of mission-oriented innovation policies: A new systemic policy approach to address societal challenges. OECD science, technology and industry policy papers, 100. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/sti/inno/the-design-and-implementation-of-mission-oriented-innovation-policies-3f6c76a4-en.htm (Date of access: 20.08.2023).

Lenchuk, E. B. (2023). The Main Contours of the Russian Scientific and Technological Policy Within External Constraints. Ekonomicheskoe vozrozhdenie Rossii [Economic Revival of Russia], (3(77)), 16–24. https://doi.org/10.37930/1990-9780-2023-3-77-16-24 (In Russ.)

Leydesdorff, L., Rotolo, D., & de Nooy, W. (2013). Innovation as a nonlinear process, the scientometric perspective, and the specification of an ‘innovation opportunities explorer’. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 25 (6), 641−653. https://doi:10.1080/09537325.2013.801948

Lundvall, B. (2007). National Innovation Systems-Analytical Concept and Development Tool. Industry and Innovation, 14 (1), 95−119. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662710601130863

Lundvall, B.-Å., Joseph, K. J., Chaminade C., & Vang, J. (2009). Handbook of Innovation Systems and Developing Countries. Building Domestic Capabilities in a Global Setting. Cheltenham, UK; Northamption, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, 395.

Mazzucato, M. (2018). Mission-oriented innovation policies: challenges and opportunities. Industrial and Corporate Change, 27 (5), 803–815. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dty034

Mazzucato, M., Doyle, S., & Burgsdorff, L. von (2024). Mission-oriented industrial strategy: global insights. UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose. IIPP Policy Report No. 2024/09, 64. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/public-purpose/policy-report-2024-09 (дата обращения: 22.05.2024).

Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. W. (1972). The limits to growth. Universe books.

Metcalfe, S. (2003). Equilibrium and Evolutionary Foundations of Competition and Technology Policy: New Perspectives on the Division of Labour and the Innovation Process. Revista Brasileira de Inovação, 2 (1), 111−146. https://doi.org/10.20396/rbi.v2i1.8648870

Porter, M. E. (2001). Regions and the New Economics of Competition. Global City-Regions. Trends, Theory, Policy (pp. 139–157). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198297994.003.0010

Raven, R., & Walrave, B. (2020). Overcoming transformational failures through policy mixes in the dynamics of technological innovation systems. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 153, 119297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.05.008

Rodrik, D. (2004). Industrial policy for the twenty-first century. Harvard University.

Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous Technological Change. Journal of Political Economy, 98 (5), 2, 71–102. https://doi.org/10.1086/261725

Rothwell, R. (1986). Public Innovation Policy: To Have or to Have Not? R&D Management, 16 (1), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.1986.tb01154.x

Samovoleva, S. A. (2022). Innovation policy development: former objectives and new challenges. Innovatsii [Innovations], (1(279)), 71−80. (In Russ.)

Schot, J., & Steinmueller, W. E. (2018). Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Research Policy, 47 (9), 1554−1567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.011

Schumpeter, J. A. (1939). Business cycles. A Theoretical, Historical and Statistical Analysis of the Capitalist Process. New York, Toronto, London: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 461.

Smits, R., & Kuhlmann, S. (2004). The rise of systemic instruments in innovation policy. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, 1 (1/2), 4–32. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijfip.2004.004621

Smorodinskaya, N. V., Katukov, D. D., Malygin, V. E. (2019). Shumpeterian Growth Theory in the Context of the Innovation-Led Transition of Economies. Journal of Institutional Studies, 11 (2), 60−78. https://doi.org/10.17835/2076-6297.2019.11.2.060-078 (In Russ.)

Tatsuno, S. (1986). The technopolis strategy: Japan, high technology, a. the control of the twenty-first cent. Prentice Hall press.

Varshavsky, A. E. (2019). On the quality of preparation of strategic documents, devoted to problems of innovation development. Analiz i modelirovanie ekonomicheskikh i sotsial’nykh protsessov: Matematika. Komp’yuter. Obrazovanie [Analysis and modeling of economic and social processes: Mathematics. Computer. Education], 26 (7), 24–38. https://doi.org/10.20537/mce2019econ02 (In Russ.)

Yasinskii, V. A., & Kozhevnikov, M. Y. (2023). The Struggle for Technological Sovereignty: China’s Experience and Lessons for Russia. Studies on Russian Economic Development, 34 (5), 704–712. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1075700723050167