114. Financing innovation activities (continued) Innovation is the result of investing in the development and acquisition of new knowledge, previously unused ideas for updating areas of people’s lives: technology; products; organizational forms of social life

21.2. Subjects of appraisal activities The subjects of appraisal activities include the following persons:1. Appraisers are individuals and legal entities who have the right to carry out appraisal activities. The requirements for appraisal activities of individuals are:

2.3. Main activities The main activity of the company is production

The article examines the problems of forming an institutional environment within the framework of innovation activities. Institutions that regulate innovation processes are of particular importance in the modern economy. The authors conduct a theoretical and methodological analysis of institutional factors in the development of an innovative economy. The authors consider a conceptual analysis of the problem of accelerating innovative growth of the national and regional economy within the framework of the national innovation system. The institutional environment of the innovation system functions and changes under the influence of its factors. The authors propose to structure the institutional environment according to the objects of regulation. In addition, it is advisable to structure this environment according to the subjects of institutionalization of the innovation market. Thus, from the state of the institutional factors of the environment of the innovative economy, it was revealed that the current state does not contribute to the effectiveness of the institutional environment, since if the environment is unstable, political risks are high, which increases the uncertainty of the results of innovation activity at all stages of the innovation cycle: concluding contracts, providing resources , the presence of demand for innovation.

institutional economy

innovation economy

institutional environment

institutional environmental factors

innovation system

national innovation system

1. Institutional economics: textbook / ed. A.N. Oleinik. – M.: INFRA– M., 2005. – 704 p.

2. Kondratyeva E.V. National innovation system: theoretical concept. - Electronic resource. – Access mode: http://www.schumpeter.ru/article.php?id=4&book=concept. – Date of access: 02/23/2015.

3. North D. Institutions, institutional changes and the functioning of the economy. – M.: Nachala, 1997.

4. Ternovsky D.S. Institutional environment in the system of factors of economic development / D.S. Ternovsky // Economic Bulletin of Rostov State University. – T. 6. – No. 3.

5. Chris Freeman The National System of Innovation in historical perspective / Cambridge Journal of Economics. – 1995. – Vol. 19. – R. 5–24. - Electronic resource. – Available at: http://www.globelicsacademy.org/2011_pdf/Freeman %20NSI %20historial %20perspective.pdf. – Date of access: 02/23/2015.

6. Lundvall B.-A. (1992) National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, Pinter Publishers, London.

7. Michael E. Porter (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Harvard Business Review. - Electronic resource. – Access mode: http://www.clustermapping.us/sites/default/files/files/resource/The %20Competitive %20Advantage %20of %20Nations %20HBR.pdf. – Date of access: 02/23/2015.

8. Nelson R. (1993) National Systems of Innovation: A Comparative Analysis, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

9. Nelson R. National Innovation Systems a Comparative Analysis. – N.Y.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.

10. Nelson R., Winter S. An evolutionary theory of economic changes, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachussetts. – 1982.

11. Oxley J.E. Institutional environment and the mechanism of governance: The impact of intellectual property protection on the structure of inter-firm alliances // Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. – 1999. – No. 38. – P. 283–309.

12. Schumpeter J.A. The Theory of Economic Development. – New York. Oxford University, 1934.

13. Sustainable Manufacturing: Shaping Global Value Creation. Edited by G?nther Seliger, Springer Science & Business Media, 2012, ISBN 3642272908, 9783642272905.

Institutions that regulate innovation processes are of particular importance in the modern economy. Such institutions include the institution of property; regulatory institutions; institutions that determine the functioning of business; competition institute, knowledge institute, etc. They act as a necessary basis for the formation of the institutional environment and at the same time as institutional factors in the development of an innovative economy.

Research from three scientific schools is devoted to the relationship between the institutional environment and innovation activity in the country. Political science, which studies issues of industrial policy and competitiveness, argues that the institutional framework in a country determines the type of policy instruments that the government will use to manage the economy. Sociological institutionalism studies the influence of institutional frameworks on the activities of an enterprise; the role of the state is considered proactive if it is involved in the development of institutional frameworks and the development of legal acts that stimulate innovative activity. The capitalist tradition, combining sociological and neo-institutional approaches, explores the relationship between enterprise innovation strategies and a country's institutional environment.

D.S. Ternovsky in the article “Institutional environment in the system of factors of economic development” indicates that the impact of the institutional environment on economic growth is possible through the formation and functioning of external institutions, and institutional agreements? through the formation and functioning of external and internal institutions. D. North and O. Williamson in their works proposed to distinguish between institutional agreements and the institutional environment (environment).

Institutional environment (economic constitution, institutional structure of the economy, institutional framework) - characteristics of the external environment that are significant for economic activity, a set of values, formal and informal norms that affect the balance of incentives in activity and determine the achievement of minimal agreement between people.

R. Nelson in his study emphasizes the importance of the influence of the institutional environment on the dynamics of creating innovations and incentives, exploring the national innovation system as an interconnected system of all elements of the economic activity of society. The basis for the formation of a national innovation system is the institutional environment. The concept of a national innovation system was proposed in 1987 by the English scientist Christopher Freeman. In his research, he identified patterns of development of the national economy from the development and introduction of new technologies into the economy of society. The concept of a national innovation system is based on the works of J. Schumpeter, R. Nelson, M. Porter, B. Lundwall and other outstanding scientists. E.V. Kondratieva in her article “National Innovative Economy: A Theoretical Concept” comes to the conclusion that “what was common to the founders of the concept was the understanding of NIS as a process and result of the integration of structures that are heterogeneous in terms of goals and objectives, engaged in the production and commercial implementation of scientific knowledge and technologies within national borders ( small and large companies, universities, scientific institutes), provided by a complex of institutions of legal, financial and social interaction, with strong national roots, traditions, political and cultural characteristics."

A conceptual analysis of the problem of accelerating innovative growth of the national and regional economy allows us to propose the following structural factor model (Fig. 1).

Within the framework of the national innovation system, the principles of reforming state cooperation and the processes of reforming the coordination of subjects in the NIS space are changing, taking into account: factors of the external global environment; the scale of territories and subjects of territories, strategic goals of all subjects of the system; potential of subjects and their specificity.

Rice. 1. Structural factor model of innovation systems

The central object of factor analysis is innovative systems of different levels of complexity, their resource, technological and performance parameters in statics and dynamics. The quantity, quality and speed of innovative organizations, processes and goods are determined by factors affecting innovation systems. These factors are divided into institutional and non-institutional. The last group includes all resource, technological, production, sales (marketing) factors of the innovation cycle. They can be called innovation factors of the 1st type, since they directly create the conditions for innovation activity.

Limiting ourselves to the analysis of institutional factors, the authors propose their structural model in the innovation market (Fig. 2).

Rice. 2. Structure of the institutional environment of the innovation market

Institutional factors are a systemic set of norms, rules and laws that create a legal formal and informal framework for the implementation of non-institutional factors of innovation. Therefore, they can be defined as factors of the 2nd kind. They can have a prohibitive or permissive, directive or indicative, stimulating or disstimulating profile. Each of these factors has its own functionality, but if any functions are lost, this factor-institution becomes dysfunctional.

In turn, the institutional environment of the innovation system functions and changes under the influence of its factors (momentary and historical), which can be defined as factors of the 3rd kind.

This model includes three main types of institutions that regulate demand, supply and equilibrium in the innovation market. Each type of institution has its own specific objects of influence - institutionalization.

Therefore, the institutional environment is structured according to the objects of regulation. In addition, it is advisable to structure this environment according to the subjects of institutionalization of the innovation market. These subjects, like objects, can be classified, firstly, by scale (mega-, macro-, meso-, micro-, mini-institutions), secondly, by the scope of regulation (administrative, network, corporate institutions), thirdly, by the degree of legalization (formal, informal), fourthly, by the stages of the innovation cycle and its participants, including:

Innovation Marketing Institutes;

Institutes of the intervention stage (research and development, research and development);

Institutions of the innovation stage;

Institutions of the stage of diffusion and imitation of innovations.

The development of the institutional environment for innovation is influenced by exogenous and endogenous factors. Exogenous factors include: the state of the political situation on the world market, government regulation, infrastructure of innovation, environmental and technological restrictions on production, the emergence of new markets, the degree of formation of the market structure.

Endogenous factors include: the competence of enterprise managers responsible for R&D; high quality of strategic management of innovation activities; orientation of managers and employees to the development and use of new technologies; creative potential; motivation of personnel to develop and implement innovations and other factors.

The state of the political situation on the world market has a significant impact on the development of innovation. The current state does not contribute to the effectiveness of the institutional environment, because if the environment is unstable, political risks are high, which increases the uncertainty of the results of innovation activity at all stages of the innovation cycle: concluding contracts, providing resources, and the presence of demand for innovation.

The regulatory influence of the state as an institution should be aimed at creating a legislative framework, monitoring the implementation of regulations, and organizational and financial support for innovative projects. Depending on the general state of the innovation environment, the main directions of state regulation of the innovation market can be classified as measures carried out in conditions of insufficient, balanced and excess demand for innovation.

The infrastructure of innovation activity is a systemic set of institutions, including academic, industrial and university science, technology parks, technology incubators, business incubators, business angels, innovation promotion funds and others.

The work was supported by the Russian Humanitarian Fund, grant No. 15-12-59005.

Bibliographic link

Institutional innovation plays the most active role in institutional development and institutional change. The activities of any economic entity are associated with institutional changes and institutional innovations of various kinds. However, not all changes and innovations are institutional innovations.

Under institutional innovation It is customary to understand innovations in formal and informal institutions and the mechanisms for ensuring them in the most general terms. However, there is a certain tautology here, because the concept of innovation is defined through innovation. Institutional innovation can be defined as the rules of the game, created and established by formal and informal means, which have no analogues in a given institutional environment. This is one of the forms of institutional changes in the rules of the game that have developed between economic entities and in their economic behavior.

In an economic system, there are many subjects capable of carrying out institutional innovations (from an individual to a state), and each of them has its own logic of action. The effectiveness of innovators (from an individual entrepreneur to a macro-regulator-state) is different: an individual entrepreneur receives all the profits from the institutional innovations carried out; a group of entrepreneurs is forced to distribute profits among its agents, so the effectiveness of these innovations is less. Innovations carried out by macroeconomic entities are most effective, since these entities (social movements and the state) are aimed at protecting individual interests.

Thus, the effectiveness of innovation increases as the economy moves from the individual entrepreneur to other, higher-level economic institutions. In this regard, V.L. Tambovtsev develops an alternative concept - institutional market as a mechanism of institutional change. The introduction of institutional innovations is carried out through the so-called institutional market. As S. Pejovic notes, the market of institutions is a process that allows individuals to choose the rules of the game in their community. Through their voluntary interactions, individuals evaluate prevailing rules and determine and test the suitability of new ones. The most important function of this competitive market is therefore to encourage institutional innovation and forms of adaptive behavior. In the market of institutions, their competition occurs (meta-competition, according to F. Hayek). “Competition between rules” refers to competition between individuals and groups, which is carried out through rules and institutions. It shows how the distribution of individuals or groups along the gradations of the "scale of rules" is determined by the relative success that different rules help their respective users achieve. The victory of one or another institution means that it has become widespread in the economic behavior of economic entities, and the loss shows that this rule ceases to be applied at all or is followed occasionally in certain situations. An individual’s adherence to one or another rule is determined not only by current economic benefits, but also by sociocultural conditions.

The differences between the political and institutional markets are that through the political market rules are introduced, the results of the use of which by economic entities bring one or another benefit to the players of the political market, and in the institutional market there are rules of economic behavior, the results of following which are assessed as beneficial by the economic entities themselves.

Institutional innovations cover different areas: the market - a “market agreement” on the principles of interaction; family and clan ties - a localized community of individuals in which the personal reputation of each individual plays an important role;

the sphere of activity of social movements (labor movement, cooperative movement, environmental movement); the sphere of “civil agreement”, where democratic institutions operate, primarily the state. Institutional innovations can arise at three levels - at the level of systemic changes in the institutional structure (national - macro level), the level of changes in individual areas and industries (local - meso level), as well as the level of changes in private economic and social practices (individual - micro level) .

Institutional innovation can arise from institutional design. Researchers propose to take into account the basic principles of institutional design: the stage-by-stage completeness of the project, its component completeness, a sufficient variety of incentives, maximum protection from deviant (opportunistic) behavior, as well as the principle of complicity in the development and “implantation” of a particular institution. Institutional design acts as a conscious, purposeful activity aimed at organizing institutions, a means of solving the problem of streamlining relationships, overcoming the atomized state of the economy, and reducing the level of uncertainty.

Economic reality shows that the share of consciously formed institutions increases during periods of large-scale institutional changes - transformations, reforms and revolutions. To create appropriate artificial institutions, institutional design is necessary. Institutional design refers to activities aimed at developing models of economic institutions that are consciously and purposefully introduced into economic mass behavior. The main problem is to develop principles of action that, if followed, would allow interested parties to form institutions that effectively solve the problems they are intended to overcome. At the present stage, changes in economic institutions have become mainly the result of reforms, i.e. targeted events of various scales, carried out according to a specific plan. Reforms generate institutional innovations, some of which are implemented in their intended form, another part is implemented in a different form from the original, and the third quickly perishes. The theory of reform should become an important part of institutional economics.

In general, the theory of institutional design and transition processes continues to develop, and numerous original studies are being conducted on the problems of transformation of economic institutions in post-Soviet Russia.

The import of institutions as a mechanism for the emergence and implementation of institutional changes and innovations can be carried out at various levels of management - from the nanoeconomic to the macroeconomic and planetary level. Institutions imported at one level of management (for example, at the firm level) and successfully transplanted into the activities of entities personifying this level can subsequently find equally effective use at other levels of management. The practice of spreading the institution of contracting confirms these processes quite clearly. Thus, contracts initially arose as a way to formalize (institutionalize) relationships between partner firms in the provision of resources or the sale of manufactured products and services, gradually spreading to other areas of inter-firm relations (joint scientific research, innovative developments, etc.). Subsequently, contracts began to be used in the practice of relationships between firms and the state (concessions, leases, joint ventures), and then within individual households (marriage contracts). This example reflects the actual processes of importing the institution of contracting from the microeconomic level to the macroeconomic and nanoeconomic levels of management. Thus, the import of institutions can be carried out not only from heterogeneous institutional systems - from the institutional system X into the institutional system U, but also within each of these institutional systems, but from one level of management to another level. At the same time, a hierarchical sequence in the import of institutions from lower levels to higher levels, and vice versa, is not necessarily observed. Here the principle of selectivity in the selection and application of imported institutions can operate on the part of interested subjects, allowing them to independently decide which institutions and how they will import.

Often, institutions imported by one entity quickly penetrate the internal institutional environment of other entities, which allows us to talk about their unique diffusion. This can be illustrated by the example of the import of informal institutions at the individual level. The fashionable passion for oriental traditions in cooking, interior design, leisure, and sports has become significant, especially in recent years. The philosophy of Feng Shui and its applied application, for example, in the interior design of offices and residential premises, have become quite widespread. There are few people left who do not know and have not tried sushi and rolls, wasabi and tequila, and there are few who link this with the import of informal institutions. Such a massive importation by individuals of informal institutions (Eastern traditions) practically all over the world, completely incongruent with the existing institutional environment, can be explained not only by Veblen’s “idle curiosity”, but also by the objective process of increasing institutional diffusion in the context of globalization. At the same time, it is important to emphasize this trend - the stronger the support provided by specific subjects, their groups, associations in the adoption of this or that new informal institution, the faster and with lower transplantation costs its expansion will be carried out both at this level and at other levels of management . Evidence of this is the use of informal institutions, in this case Eastern traditions, in the business models of many European and American corporations.

Borrowing, or transplanting, institutions from other economic systems is an alternative to their design. The institutions offered by developed countries cannot be adequately used in the conditions of another country and cannot be “adapted” to suit a specific country. Each system of rules, according to V.M. Polterovich, allows for many implementations of dependence on the cultural and specific historical environment. At the same time, the peculiarities of development and the specifics of the economic state in the process of their modification can be taken into account in borrowed institutions. Therefore, there are two main limitations in choosing the institutional system from which individual institutions borrow. The first limitation is the problem of combining historical time or the time of development of different countries. Although calendar countries are located in the same coordinates, chronologically they differ depending on the level of maturity and the state of the sociocultural and economic environments. The second limitation is the problem of the pace and timing of the introduction of new institutions. Is it necessary to introduce developed institutions immediately or gradually, step by step, and thus move to a more advanced state? V.M. Polterovich suggests using four types of implementation strategies:

• 1. Strategy for modifying the transplant institute, within which it adapts to the new environment.
• 2. The strategy of institutional experiment, when various modifications of a certain institution are tested for compatibility with other institutions in different regions of the country.
• 3. The strategy of “growing” an institution borrowed in an immature form from the history of another country.
• 4. Strategy for constructing a sequence of intermediate institutions. This type of strategy allows you to combine the advantages of growing and designing, as well as managing the process of creating your own institutions.

Since borrowed institutions in developed economies also evolve, an asynchronous co-evolution of institutional development in different countries arises with the aim of transitioning to some kind of common institutional system that would allow economic entities to function normally in different economies. An openness of the economy arises, understood not mechanistically, as a transfer of institutions, but as a process of their co-evolutionary development towards the creation of unified norms and rules that allow business entities to understand and predict the actions of other entities located in other economic systems. Practice shows that the existing market of institutions in Russia is fundamentally distorted to a much greater extent than the market of goods or technologies. This means that an effective transplantation process can only be ensured through the intervention of non-market forces, primarily the state. And for this, the state itself must be effective enough to ensure the process of implantation as the development of institutional building.

Innovation Innovator
Entrepreneur1 Household2 Firm3 Group4 Social movement5 State6
A. Private good A1 (4) A2 (2) A3 (2) A4 (3) A5 (1) A6 (0)
B. Club benefit B1 (3) B2 (2) B3 (2) B4 (4) B5 (3) B6 (0)
B. Public good B1 (2) B2 (0) B3 (3) B4 (1) B5 (3) B6 (4)
Rice. 8.1. Interrelation of objects and subjects of institutional innovations
and their comparative advantages
For each combination, after the code, a comparative assessment of the actions of innovators is indicated in parentheses: 4 – maximum incentives for innovation, 2 – average, 0 – minimum. An assessment of the comparative advantages in implementing different types of innovation shows that the most effective combinations are A1, B4 and B6, highlighted in gray. Innovation as a private good is created and controlled by an entrepreneur; he also receives the innovator's profit (A1). In the production of innovation as a club good, the actions of groups that are most consistent with the production of this club good are effective. The state, followed by social movements and firms, are most able to provide institutional innovation as public goods. Households play a conservative role, since institutional innovations can change the boundary between private and public life and threaten existing routines. Firms and households are neutral to the production of “private” innovations, since the possible benefits may be offset by the increased costs of changing routines7. Such an analysis allows us to draw appropriate conclusions for each specific case of institutional innovation.

You look at the article (abstract): “ Types and subjects of institutional innovations"from discipline" New institutional economic theory»

Type of work:

Other on the topic: Innovation (institutional, innovative development of the Russian Federation)

AHD, ekpred, enterprise finance

15.09.2018 1:47:29

File type:

Virus check:

Checked - Kaspersky Anti-Virus

Full text:




Introduction 3

1. Theoretical aspects of studying the implementation of institutional innovations in the economy 5

1.1. The concept of institutional innovation and innovative development of Russia 5

1.2. The essence and foundations of innovative activity in Russia 9

1.3. The impact of institutional innovations on the Russian economy 12

2. Analysis of the problems of introducing institutional innovations into the Russian economy and ways to solve them 15

2.1. Indicators of innovative development of the Russian economy at the present stage 15

2.2. Criteria and threats for innovative development of the Russian economy 20

2.3. The main problems of introducing institutional innovations into the Russian economy and ways to solve them 24

Conclusion 29

Bibliography 31

Application 35




Introduction




In modern conditions of economic development, an important factor in the functioning of a socio-economic system of any scale will be its active implementation of strategically targeted measures to create and strengthen obvious and hidden advantages over its competitors in the form of its innovative focus. A competitive advantage is given to those socio-economic systems that allow the fastest possible accumulation of certain resources, skills, and knowledge, allowing the implementation of a set of measures to enhance innovation activity. If we are talking about the state, then competitive advantages will be provided to it by a set of administrative measures aimed at finding ways to manage the innovative activities of economic entities on its territory and directions for implementing programs that ensure its innovative activity.

The Russian Federation needs to find effective answers to a number of economic and technological challenges, one of which is ensuring innovative development and creating competitive high-tech industries. To successfully implement such a scenario, a serious modernization of society and its institutions, the industrial and financial sectors, science and the education system is necessary. Creating a socially oriented innovative economy an ambitious task that requires teamwork and the organization of effective feedback between the government, business and citizens of the country. To resolve these issues, the “Strategy for Innovative Development of the Russian Federation for the period until 2020” was developed and approved by the Order of the Government of the Russian Federation dated December 8, 2011.

Goal of the work study the problems of introducing institutional innovations into the economy.

To achieve the goal, the following work tasks are defined:

1. characterize the concept of institutional innovation and innovative development of the Russian Federation;
2. consider the essence and foundations of innovative activity in Russia;
3. study the impact of institutional innovations on the Russian economy;
4. analyze the indicators of innovative development of the Russian economy;
5. identify criteria and threats to innovative development of the Russian economy;
6. identify the main problems in the development of innovative activity in Russia and propose ways to solve them.

The object of the study is the Russian Federation. Subject of research innovative development of the Russian Federation.

During the research process, the following research methods were used: theoretical analysis of literature to substantiate theoretical and practical directions of research, systematization, generalization and description.

The theoretical basis of the work is the works of modern domestic authors of monographs and scientific articles from periodicals. The information base for the study was the current federal regulatory documents on the problem under study.

The work consists of an introduction, two chapters, a conclusion, a list of references and an appendix.




1. Theoretical aspects of studying the implementation of institutional innovations in the economy




1.1. The concept of institutional innovation and innovative development of Russia




Institutional Innovation changes in the institutional structure that impart a fundamentally new quality to its elements, or mark the emergence of a new element of the institutional structure (subject, object, mechanism of the institutional environment), resolving existing contradictions between the elements of the institutional structure and / or the external environment.

Institutional innovations can arise on the basis of previous, long-existing norms and guidelines and can arise without any connection with previous institutions, in an institutional vacuum, when there are no guidelines and norms at all.

Innovations are implemented only through the investment process, but even the most profitable innovative development will not “lure” an investor if all other components (factors) of the investment decision (legal, institutional, infrastructural, etc.) are negative. Meanwhile, without the interest of entrepreneurs to develop, invest and introduce into production new technologies, new equipment, the innovative development of Russia, like any other country, is unthinkable. Measures taken by the state should lead the business community to the conclusion that only innovation is the path to high and sustainable profits.

That is why, when speaking about government assistance in the transition of the Russian economy to an innovative path of development, we cannot leave out the role of the authorities of the constituent entities of the Federation and municipalities. Only locally can we clearly determine what needs to be done in order to generate entrepreneurs’ interest in innovation and develop venture capital financing in the economy. Only locally is it possible to most reliably determine the most promising “points” of innovative development of the territorial economy.

This is a socio-economic process, which is based on the formation of a state innovation system. It should be capable of increasing the country's innovative potential and its implementation through the organization of high-tech production. The innovative potential of the state is a set of factors and conditions that characterize the state’s ability to develop innovatively.

In modern conditions, the main guideline for managing the spatial factors of the modern economy of innovation development is the solution of three tasks:

1) “reanimation” of traditional innovation centers of the economy based on the restoration, concentration and clear specialization of their scientific potential;

2) the formation of new “points” of innovative development, ensuring a certain leveling of the innovation space of the economy;

3) maximum convergence of the composition of the leading regions in the innovation process and the leading regions of the Russian economy as a whole.

This task is met by consolidating the role of spatial factors of an innovation-type economy as a system-forming element of the federal policy of state development. As an integral part of the development strategy, innovation policy should, among other things, take into account:

1. the need to identify regions whose socio-economic space is capable of most quickly and fully accepting the innovative development model, and the governing bodies of the subject of the Federation - to ensure the implementation of this process and effective control over it;
2. the staged nature and variety of forms of entry of regions of various types into the economy of an innovative type (through high-tech industrial production; through innovation in the agricultural sector; through innovation in the service sector, through information technology; through modern communication technologies, etc.), which implies an active , targeted policy of intersectoral regulation;
3. balance of the “spot strategy” of stimulating innovation and efforts to improve the general economic, legal and institutional characteristics of the entire space of innovative development.

It is extremely dangerous to imagine that certain individual “points” are able to fully implement the idea of ​​innovative modernization of the Russian economy, even if they, in themselves quite well organized and secured, will operate in a space that is unfavorable for investment and rejects the very idea of ​​innovation in production. This is true, as is the fact that innovative renewal of the economy, especially in a country like Russia, cannot advance without “support points” at all.

We believe that finding the optimal balance of these components of the spatial strategy for innovative development is one of the key tasks of the state’s innovation policy for the near future.

In our country, the main priority for improving economic activity is the introduction of new developments in all areas of activity of the population. However, this cannot be achieved by direct instructions from above. In this regard, one of the main roles in solving this problem is assigned to local authorities, who in turn must set appropriate priorities in their immediate activities.

At the first stage, the state’s development strategy includes creating favorable conditions in the territories under their control for the development of production and business activities, and providing comfortable conditions for investment. It is important to respond to ongoing general changes in a timely manner. It is also necessary to regularly edit the assigned tasks aimed at the sustainable development of the region, ways and methods of achieving them. The natural features of the territory play an important role in the process. They are taken into account by researchers assessing Russia's development prospects.

For better use of the territory’s potential, the state is involved in the process, and legislative acts are established at the state level. Participation in this case is carried out by attracting own capital and human resources to the most interesting projects from an economic point of view.

When considering Russia's development prospects, it is important to find ways to support knowledge-intensive and high-tech production. The solution to these issues is considered one of the most important in the modern world.

Only through an integrated approach to management on the part of the state and local authorities is high-quality and competitive economic development of Russia possible. At the same time, it is necessary to introduce new advanced approaches both to already functioning industries and to new ones being introduced on the territory of the subject. In most cases, the competitiveness and sustainable development of Russia depends on the ability to quickly implement modern technologies.

1.2. The essence and foundations of innovative activity in Russia




Today, at the level of our state, a lot of attention is paid to innovative development as a priority. On December 8, 2011, the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation approved the Strategy for Innovative Development of the Russian Federation for the period until 2020, in which innovation is understood from the point of view of an object approach, but partially involving a process approach. Despite a certain common understanding of innovation, each of its implementations has specific features and uniqueness.

Thus, to create a system in all its diversity, some kind of classification is necessary. There are again many approaches to classifying innovations. Let us turn to the most commonly used classification of innovations by characteristics.

1. From the point of view of cyclical development (the largest innovations the basis of revolutionary revolutions in technology; large new generations of technology within this area; average replacement of outdated models; small improvement of some model parameters).

2. In terms of intensity of use (from zero to seventh order).

3. Depending on the degree of use of scientific knowledge.

4. If possible, life cycle planning (innovations that make it possible to make a revolutionary leap in production and become an integral element (forecast); shifts in individual elements of the productive forces while maintaining the original principle (long-term nature); quantitative change and improvement of some parameters (current and long-term planning ).

5. By method (experimental and direct innovation).

6. By area of ​​management (product, process (technological), management, etc.).

7. In relation to the previous state (replacing, canceling, opening, retro-innovations).

8. By source of planning (central, local, spontaneous).

9. According to the level of novelty (radical changing or creating entire industries, systemic, modifying).

10. By purpose (sales efficiency, production efficiency, improvement of working conditions, improvement of product quality), etc.

The greater the number of classification groups used to define an innovation, the more difficult it is to determine its specificity. Innovations as such provide an opportunity for an entrepreneur or any other business entity to gain additional unique competitive advantages. Thus, innovation activity as such is one of the promising areas of economic activity. However, at the same time, innovation activity is one of the most risky activities, since its basis risky undertaking.

Just like the concept of “innovation,” there are many approaches to the concept of “innovation activity,” but all of them pay more attention not to the target orientation of this activity, but rather to the means of achievement. Innovative activities are aimed at increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of business entities.

Innovation activities a large and complex system consisting of a large number of different innovations that are viewed from different perspectives. Innovation, as managing the process of transition of elements and systems from one qualitative state to another, complex dependence of many factors. There is currently no legislative recognition of the concept of “innovation activity”. Innovation activity is understood as a set of areas of work on organizing examinations, introducing and replicating inventions, know-how, discoveries, etc., creating prototypes and research, conducting research and other studies in order to create new technologies, and much more.

Innovative activity essentially transfers scientific and technical activity into an economic channel, carrying out the commercial and industrial implementation of scientific achievements. Thus, innovation activity This is a complex set of scientific, technological, organizational, financial and commercial activities aimed at commercializing accumulated knowledge, technologies and equipment. Innovation activities include a number of measures to achieve the main goal:

1. Search for innovative ideas.

2. Selection of the most promising ideas.

3. Assessing the viability of the selected ideas.

4. Development of a detailed business plan for an innovative project.

5. Expert assessment of the business plan

6. Experimental production of a new product in market conditions.

7. Adjustment of the production and promotion scheme.

8. Beginning of mass production of goods and its promotion.

Innovation activity is also based on a number of principles:

1. Innovation is prioritized over traditional approaches and conservatism

2. Commercial success is achieved by the cost-effectiveness of innovative production

3. Uniqueness and flexibility of the innovative structure for each new product

4. An integrated approach to innovation, conditioned by the interconnection of elements in the system By changing one link, you often have to change the entire chain.

Thus, innovation activity a complex process of interaction between creative and economic principles.

At the moment, the Russian Federation does not have sufficiently favorable soil for the development of these processes, but the state is trying to get as close as possible to the desired level of development of innovation activity in order to increase competitiveness at both the micro and macro levels. Different approaches to these categories make it possible to assess the degree of influence of innovations and innovative activities on the competitiveness of business entities.




1.3. The impact of institutional innovations on the Russian economy




Currently, the world does not stand still; it is constantly evolving. Today, a modern person can no longer imagine his life without a telephone, computer, car, household appliances, etc., that is, without innovations that have become familiar to us. Most scientists believe that innovation is the main driving force of economic and social development. Innovative activities have led the world community to a new, higher stage of development.

Innovation has a huge impact on the economy. It is even impossible to cover the entire breadth of their application. But we can highlight the most basic points of influence.

Firstly, innovation affects product quality, i.e. completely new or improved products appear that are able to most fully satisfy human needs. This leads to another point of influence - on human needs.

Secondly, they contribute to economic growth, i.e., new sectors of the economy and a single market are created (for example, the Internet). Today, people can buy the product they need from anywhere in the world through an online store.

Thirdly, the share of competent specialists is increasing. Suppose a new machine appears at a factory. To work on it, advanced training is required. Thus, the quality of personnel increases.

IN beginning XXI century priority direction is knowledge-intensive production, influencing on development national economy. Economic development states carried out on database favorable conjectures, which entails elevated demand on investment resources. IN conditions world globalization to come search ways implementation new prospects development on database innovative politicians And translation economy states on innovative way of development.

Today priority direction V activities any states, Russian, V volume number is development Sciences. In many countries created special government departments engaged problems her development, And Where special attention is given even presidents states, including her development How direction V programs development states V future. On science Today V developed countries is spent 3-4 %Total gross national product. Then How V Russia given sum amounts to 1-2 %,And Not should forget, What from spheres Sciences And scientific service V budget is happening seizure funds by accruals direct And indirect taxes, And actually share financing amounts to 0,4-0,5 %from allocated share GDP.

Russian Federation pursuit provide stable economic height, And For this necessary develop socially oriented innovative politics, providing accumulation intellectual human capital. Except Togo necessary deploy investment and innovation mechanisms oriented on accumulation And reproduction knowledge-intensive main capital, allowing implement priority social Problems society. Solution given directions Maybe behind check increase containers And demand internal market science-intensive products.

For this necessary provide pace average annual growth GDP on level 8 %by building up volumes investment V basic capital Not below 15-20 %V year, Well A V knowledge-intensive industry on order above .

Interaction Sciences And practices by implementation those or other already received results scientific search V industry, rural farming And other spheres practices, necessary For development of the state.

IN latest years the science All more becomes necessary condition development, How production, economics, So And others spheres public life, myself process practical use, A V certain least And receiving scientific and technical knowledge must become clearly planned And socially organized.

Russia, Not depending on carried out reforms, I could save significant scientific And technical potential And gives opportunity ramp up release competitive And science-intensive products.

Choice And implementation new innovative strategies development society And Sciences, which will allow provide explosive development fundamental And applied Sciences, inventions, discoveries And With subsequent mobile deployment innovative cycles By implementation innovative technologies And their mass release How knowledge-intensive products on level world standards.

2. Analysis of the problems of introducing institutional innovations into the Russian economy and ways to solve them




2.1. Indicators of innovative development of the Russian economy at the present stage




In the field of technological innovation, the main problem remained the same as in previous years: weak business interest in innovation, insufficient investment of companies in research and development. In Russia, as in developed countries, the main business investments in R&D come from large companies. However, these are mainly state-owned companies, which the government has been trying to “force to innovate” over the past five years through “programs for the innovative development of companies with state participation” (IDP). In 2015, interim results of the use of this innovation policy instrument were summed up.

According to formal indicators, state-owned companies successfully carry out design and development work. For example, their annual research and development costs have increased by 2.1 times at current prices since the start of the measure. At the same time, the situation is very polarized: 10 companies provided 80% of the total growth in extrabudgetary funding for research and development.

However, increased funding is not necessarily a sign of increased innovation. Thus, funds can be invested in improving existing technologies. Indeed, the majority of state-owned companies invest in modernization, and only 34% finance R&D that is new to the market (Appendix 2).

This result is not accidental: state-owned companies practically do not conduct assessment of priority technologies, technological monitoring, and long-term priorities are not determined. This distinguishes state-owned companies from large corporations in Europe, the USA and Japan, more than 80% of which plan their technological development. In Russian state-owned companies, priority is given to government orders, so they have a short-term planning horizon, “tuned” to the budget cycle.

State-owned companies remain largely closed to themselves: interaction with universities in the scientific field is developing, but is inactive due to the insufficient competence of universities in solving research problems, according to the companies. Universities are attractive primarily as educational institutions. As for cooperation with small businesses, the preferred form is the purchase of small firms or equity participation in their capital. Small companies are rarely used for outsourcing.

Thus, IDPs have not yet become a tool for stimulating the development of new technologies and the formation of value chains. Therefore, based on the results of their assessment, the Russian Ministry of Economic Development recommended that companies improve the procedures for drawing up and implementing their programs. The programs revised according to the new regulations were drawn up by April 2016. The main innovations: the introduction of elements of strategic planning, top-down priority selection procedures so that they are relevant for the company as a whole, as well as assessment of the commercial potential of projects worth more than 1 billion rubles. Thus, improvements concern reporting and some organizational and logistical procedures, while maintaining the paradigm of “forcing” innovation.

Despite the importance of strategic planning, its connection with companies’ interest in innovation is indirect. Companies can learn under state pressure It is better to make long-term plans, but this is unlikely to create additional motivation to invest in innovation. The problem lies in the broader area of ​​economic regulation of the work of state-owned companies, so targeted impacts on the innovative component of their work bring insignificant results.

Unlike large businesses, medium-sized high-tech companies are not covered by special government measures. Nevertheless, it is in this segment that there is a group of fast-growing high-tech companies that show high results both in increasing investments in R&D and in revenue and growth in exports of high-tech products. A study of such companies based on a sample of 75 organizations, the results of which were published in 2015, showed that the companies were mainly founded about 20 years ago, i.e. using resources created during the Soviet Union. Throughout the entire period of their development, 77% of companies were provided with some form of government support (from grants and loans to tax and customs benefits). However, it was critical for only 17% of companies. As expected, companies highly appreciated the grants from the Bortnik Foundation and subsidies, while the work of development institutions was considered insignificant (Rusnano, Skolkovo, Russian Fund for Technological Development, Russian Venture Company (RVC)). Indirect regulation in the form of customs benefits for residents of Skolkovo and special economic zones turned out to be minimally useful. At the same time, it is not the ineffectiveness of state support that is considered a serious obstacle to the development of companies, but the administrative barriers built by the state. First of all, development is hampered by the lack of a regulatory framework for the use of new technologies, as well as redundant and complex procedures for state control over the activities of companies.

Two infrastructure projects were actively deployed in 2015 “Technological Valley of Moscow State University (MSU)” and “Innopolis” (near Kazan).

Innopolis is a replication of the Skolkovo model, but within the same industry information technology (IT). Signs that make it similar to Skolkovo: construction of urban infrastructure, creation of a new university in collaboration with an American university (with Carnegie University Mellon), support for innovative companies on a territorial basis. Innopolis grew out of a special economic zone of technology-innovation type. Since 2013, 12.1 billion rubles have been allocated for its construction, and the state’s share of investments was 97.5%. In June 2015, Innopolis was opened. This project is notable for the fact that construction proceeded at a rapid pace; enrollment at the university was immediately 400 students (twice as many as at the Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology Skoltech), and all this with relatively modest budget investments (the Skolkovo and MSU Technological Valley projects are an order of magnitude more expensive).

Objective of the project attract 60 thousand IT specialists to the city. 7 years ago it was not possible to implement a more modest idea attract 10 thousand programmers to Dubna. At the same time, Dubna’s infrastructure is more advantageous than that of Innopolis, therefore, to achieve such an ambitious goal, the project is being implemented in a “manual control” mode, under the patronage of the President of the Republic of Tatarstan and the head of the Federal Ministry of Communications and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation. This can provide an influx of extra-budgetary funding for some time by “attracting” companies to invest in projects. However, the result will be temporary, since incentives for private initiative are not created. Nevertheless, the project may set a precedent for the successful construction of a new city with a “Western” university.

The “manual control” mode is also typical for the MSU Technological Valley project. It was first announced in 2013, and implementation is due to be completed in 2018. According to the statutory documents, the project aims to provide young researchers with well-paid jobs through, among other things, the creation of new laboratories, as well as joint research with industry. It is also planned to build scientific and residential premises in the Moscow State University area. In the project, including in the selection of laboratories and centers for placement in the “Technological Valley”, an important role is played by the NPO “Innopraktika”, which in its functions acts as an intermediary between young researchers in the valley and large businesses interested in cooperation. With the participation of Innopraktika, 16 interdisciplinary laboratories were opened in 2015, focused on applied research.

The amount of funding expected to be allocated for the construction of the valley is not precisely indicated and, according to various sources, ranges from 110 billion to almost 150 billion rubles. Moreover, approximately 65% ​​of the funds are intended for the development and construction of laboratories at Moscow State University. It is also expected that the largest Russian companies will take an active part in financing the project, helping MSU fill its endowment fund. A similar scheme has been implemented previously at the first stages of the formation of Skoltech, but later the government recognized it as inappropriate to “force” businesses to engage in this kind of patronage. In the new project, history repeats itself, but may have different results, since President V.V. addressed entrepreneurs with a request for support from Moscow State University. Putin.

2015 was marked by the emergence of a new big project National Technology Initiative (NTI). The interim result of 2015 was, in fact, the selection of new technological priorities, including multifunctional technologies that are important for the development of several of the planned markets of the future. The system of priority areas has come closer to the structure of initiatives of developed technological countries, which is already regarded as a step forward. Indeed, in 2015, special attention was paid to the topic of priorities, including a meeting of the Council on Science and Education. This reflected a certain crisis in the existing approaches to the formation of priority areas, which have changed very little since 1996 (the year when the list of priority areas for the development of science and technology was first approved at the federal level).

NTI can lead to a restructuring of the work of development institutions, and not only RVC, which becomes the Project Office of the initiative. In the December Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly, it was noted that development institutions should be aimed at technological modernization, optimizing their structures and operating mechanisms, since “many of them, unfortunately, have turned into a real garbage dump for “bad” debts.” However, the first step was not optimization, but the announcement of the creation of another structure NPO "Agency for Technological Development". It is expected that the new agency will work in the interests of companies and centrally deal with the transfer of foreign technologies to Russia (through licensing agreements, the creation of joint ventures), as well as provide legal and consulting support. In particular, the Agency for Technological Development should search for technologies that are important for the implementation of NTI and provide access to new network markets.

Thus, the launch of NTI will influence the “ecosystem of innovation” in terms of adjusting and supplementing the system of government instruments for technological development.




2.2. Criteria and threats for innovative development of the Russian economy




In 2015, economic sanctions and the reaction to them within the country had a significant impact on the field of science and innovation. The survey, which was conducted in May 2015 among 176 experts representing both business and the scientific and educational community, showed that, according to the majority of respondents, the new geopolitical situation has a negative impact on the development of innovation activities (Appendix 3).

The relationship between the introduction of sanctions against Russia and the changes that have become noticeable in Russian science in connection with new external conditions is by no means straightforward. Not only did economic changes begin to occur, but the general atmosphere in the field of science began to transform.

Under the sanctions, the work of even the IT sector, which is considered one of the most developed and successful in Russia, has become more difficult. It turned out that the prevalence of foreign software products in the country is very high (Appendix 4).

The indirect consequences of the introduction of sanctions were expressed in the fact that hostility to the work of foreign representative offices of organizations, including those supporting education and science, from countries that imposed sanctions, or Russian structures that were in any way associated with the support and promotion of “foreign” ideas began to mature and grow. and views.

In December 2015, an organization that actively supported scientific and innovative activities in Russian universities in partnership with the Russian Ministry of Education and Science was closed, American-Russian Foundation for Economic and Legal Development (USRF). After its inclusion in the list of “undesirable organizations,” the very next day the foundation announced the cessation of its activities in Russia and the closure of its office in Moscow.

Closing of funds a completely rational decision by their leaders: after an organization receives the status of a “foreign agent,” its activities become more difficult. So, in practice, this means a ban on working with budgetary institutions, namely they constitute the main contingent of scientific and educational organizations. The same situation arises with “undesirable organizations” receiving their grants becomes risky.

With growing tensions between Russia and the most developed innovative countries, official rhetoric continues to support the development of international activities in the field of science. Moreover, it is constantly emphasized that science is international and that international scientific cooperation basis for development. Thus, Project 5-100 encourages universities to publish abroad and participate in international activities, and invite foreign specialists to work. This is really important, since so far Russian publications are rarely among those highly cited, and this distinguishes Russia from many, even developing countries. For the period 2004 2015 only 6% of highly cited Russian articles were written by Russian scientists themselves, and the rest only in collaboration with foreign colleagues. However, priorities are gradually changing.

In the country aspect, a group of countries comes to the fore members of the BRICS, and from the point of view of personnel, new hopes are pinned on the development of cooperation with representatives of the Russian-speaking diaspora. An analysis of the effectiveness of scientific activities in the BRICS countries indicates that scientific ties between members of the group are still weak. Moreover, the BRICS countries seek to cooperate not with each other, but with countries scientific leaders. BRICS's own results are not yet good enough. The diaspora is active in developing connections, including helping to create modern laboratories in universities using Project 5-1003 funds. A recent survey of 150 representatives of the Russian-speaking scientific diaspora showed that members of the diaspora who intensively interact with Russia are loyal and try to develop cooperation, abstracting from political problems, including sanctions.

Diaspora This is to some extent “soft power” in a situation of sanctions and a generally unfavorable geopolitical situation. Its active members are ready to teach, participate in research projects (including international grants), and also train Russian graduate students. About 2/3 of respondents suggested new mechanisms for cooperation or improvement of existing government initiatives. The ideas expressed are difficult to reduce to any typical “blocks”. But there are two types of activities in which many representatives of the diaspora are ready to take part. These are international exchange programs (internships) of various formats (including for the training of graduate students, students and trips of foreign scientists) and joint training of graduate students and graduate students. It should be noted that a number of proposals can already be implemented by individual research institutes or universities without the development of special programs of federal or regional significance.

At the same time, it is important to increase the information openness of universities and scientific organizations, since now it is difficult for foreign scientists to find well-structured information about cooperation opportunities on the websites of Russian organizations. At the same time, the attitude towards the active part of the diaspora within the country is contradictory. Thus, a survey of universities collaborating with Russian-speaking foreign scientists, which was also conducted during the study of relations with the diaspora, showed that the key problems are that foreign scientists are “expensive” (they need a lot of money; only 6% of highly cited Russian articles were written by Russian scientists themselves, and the rest only in collaboration with foreign colleagues.

The strategic positioning of the science sector has changed: there has been a transition from ambitious goals to moderate growth objectives. Key indicators of R&D expenditures and scientific productivity, which were planned to be achieved by 2015, are now assigned to 2020. This is due, among other things, to a reduction in budget allocations for science in the face of uncertainty about the prospects for increasing business sector investment in research and development.

In the innovation sphere, the most noticeable event was the replacement of the ideology “from science to the market" to the ideology "from the markets of the future to their technological and scientific projections of today,” which was reflected in the formation of the National Technology Initiative. Relying on the development of new technologies with science weakened by reforms is extremely risky. Therefore, a Technological Development Agency is being created, which will purchase technologies abroad. In fact, this means a transition to a simulation model of development in the field of innovation.

Indeed, at present there is little hope for our own scientific developments and their rapid implementation into practice, so the transfer of foreign technologies to solve NTI problems is justified. At the same time, in such a design, business must show a high interest in innovation.

In theory, you can bet on successful, fast-growing mid-sized tech companies. With a change in the production paradigm (the transition to new production technologies in a broad sense), they can become the support of technological development.

However, on a large scale, the business sector is not yet active enough, not because of the weakness of development institutions, but to a large extent because of the administrative and economic barriers created by the state.




2.3. The main problems of introducing institutional innovations into the Russian economy and ways to solve them




Limiting factors to innovative development include insufficient funding for innovation activities from the state. According to official data, Russia spends about 2 billion dollars on research and development, which is significantly less compared to more innovatively developed countries, for example, China, Japan and the USA, where almost 8, 14 and 32 billion dollars are allocated for research activities, respectively. .

Due to insufficient accumulation of funds, there is a reduction in the number of scientists involved in innovative activities. Most Russian scientists migrate from the country due to relatively low wages and insufficient financial support for the process of creating innovative products. As a result of external migration, Russia is losing a large number of potential developments that could later bring the country a good reputation in the world market. The main consumer of Russian migrants is the United States. The United States brings together almost 30% of Russian scientists. Also one of the major consumers is Germany, which has 20% of Russian scientists. The lack of qualified workers in Russia is associated not only with their migration to other countries, but also with insufficient professional training of graduate students, which characterizes the Russian education system as underdeveloped and ineffective in the field of innovation.

The slow process of development of innovative technologies is associated with the reluctance of private investors to invest in innovative developments. This fact can easily be explained by the fact that the likelihood of receiving high income from an innovative product is minimal. According to official data, the share of successful developments is 1-3% of the total.

In Russia, according to FIPS (Federal Intellectual Property Service), only about 2.5% of inventions of the total number of patented ones are used. The low probability of making a profit from an innovative product is also accompanied by the long-term nature of its receipt; this process requires the investment of additional funds. Due to the high risk of losing invested financial resources, only 9.4% of Russian enterprises implement innovations. In this situation, the problem of insufficient government intervention, which can change the situation by introducing various programs providing benefits and subsidies to enterprises engaged in the production of innovative products, is important, since their share of risk and loss of financial resources is much higher than that of the inventor himself.

The process of development of innovative technologies directly depends on the degree of government intervention. It should not only finance innovation activities, but also pursue policies aimed at creating a favorable economic climate for the implementation of innovation processes.

In connection with the above problems of innovative development in Russia, the state must take basic measures to change the economic state of the country and improve the climate in the field of innovation. The activities of the state should be determined by the following areas:

assistance in training qualified personnel, assistance in advanced training;

development and implementation of government programs aimed at increasing the innovative activity of private investors;

allocation of additional funds for scientific research and innovative development;

implementation of measures of direct and indirect regulation of the innovation process: introduction of tax incentives (reduction of VAT, preferential taxation of profits, reduction of sales tax on innovative products), additional financing of R&D (research, development and technological work) from the state budget;

multilateral stimulation of innovation activity;

legal regulation of innovation processes (legislative consolidation of the rights of scientists involved in innovation activities, implementation of innovation policy);

improving the innovation management mechanism, creating national and regional innovation systems.

It should be clearly understood that in order to achieve the desired result in the form of increasing the level of development of innovative technologies on the Russian market, it is necessary to take into account all fundamental factors; changing one or more cannot lead to serious improvements in the field of scientific developments.

Thus, despite a number of problems present in the field of innovative developments, we can say with confidence that Russia has powerful potential to occupy a higher position in the global innovation market. In the future, there is a positive dynamics in the development of innovative technologies in the country, which is possible with more active intervention in the field of scientific developments by the state and subject to its compliance with a number of established obligations.

First. It is proposed to increase the share of competitive funding for research and development, without changing the operating principles of scientific foundations. Currently, work under grants from the Russian Foundation for Basic Research and the Russian Humanitarian Foundation must be carried out in free time from the main work, on weekends and holidays, and trips to conferences under the grant pass through vacation days. Therefore, it would be important to increase grant funding simultaneously with changing the conditions for spending funds.

Second. It is proposed to oblige the Russian Foundation for Basic Research and the Russian Science Foundation to expand competitions that require co-financing from private funds. With low business activity in the field of R&D, putting forward such a requirement means pressure on scientific organizations and universities, but not an incentive for companies. In addition, the government is already requiring scientific foundations to finance not only initiative projects of fundamental and exploratory research, but also to develop medium- and long-term programs that take into account ongoing government programs, i.e. highlight thematic priorities. This is recorded in the amendments to the Federal Law “On Science and State Scientific and Technical Policy”, adopted in July 2015. All this leads to a reduction in funding for fundamental research on topics initiated by the scientific community itself, and therefore there is a risk of underfunding of new growing areas, identify which the state setting priorities cannot.

Conclusion




Innovative development of the state This is a socio-economic process, which is based on the formation of a state innovation system. It should be capable of increasing the country's innovative potential and its implementation through the organization of high-tech production. The innovative potential of the state is a set of factors and conditions that characterize the region’s ability to develop innovatively.

Today, at the level of our state, a lot of attention is paid to innovative development as a priority. On December 8, 2011, the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation approved the Strategy for Innovative Development of the Russian Federation for the period until 2020, in which innovation is understood from the point of view of the object approach.

Innovation activities a complex process of interaction between creative and economic principles. At the moment, the Russian Federation does not have sufficiently favorable soil for the development of these processes, but the state is trying to get as close as possible to the desired level of development of innovation activity in order to increase competitiveness at both the micro and macro levels. Different approaches to these categories make it possible to assess the degree of influence of innovations and innovative activities on the competitiveness of business entities.

About more P R And n yato sch it at uh, that's all But goob R az e f A Who ro in, car de yst woo Yu sch them n a pho R m And ro V A n ie and n But V A ts and about n But s re d y, mo maybe b yt b s ve de but even s ryo m g RU P P A m: with ts And A l b But- uh co But m iches To Ie us lo V And i p az V it And I, And n But V A ts and about n n s th sweat n ts And A l, what lo evening To And y k A P it A l, y P R A V le nches To And th sweat nc And A l.

Innovative activities have led the world community to a new, higher stage of development. Innovation has a huge impact on the economy.

Currently, innovation activity is one of the important indicators of the dynamic development of the country's economic system.

In 2015, the “Strategy for Innovative Development of the Russian Federation until 2020” was revised: the target indicators, as well as the composition of the tasks to be solved, were revised. The new version of the “Strategy” includes significant changes both in target indicators and in the essence of the planned measures.

In accordance with the Strategy for Innovative Development of the Russian Federation for the period 2020 “Innovative Russia 2020” for the Russian Federation, the priority task is to implement the state policy of transition to an innovative path of economic development and the formation of a national innovation system, which includes, firstly, the creation of a favorable economic and legal environment; secondly, building an innovation infrastructure; thirdly, improving the mechanisms of state assistance for the commercialization of the results of scientific research and experimental developments.

Bibliography

1. Order of the Government of the Russian Federation dated November 17, 2008 N 1662-r (as amended on August 8, 2009) “On the Concept of long-term socio-economic development of the Russian Federation for the period until 2020” // Collection of legislation of the Russian Federation. 2008. N 47. Art. 5489.
2. Order of the Government of the Russian Federation dated December 8, 2011 N 2227-r “On approval of the Strategy for Innovative Development of the Russian Federation for the period until 2020” // Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation. 2012. - N 1. - Art. 216.
3. Abdukarimov, V.I. Problems of management of innovative activities and ways to solve them at the current stage of development of Russia [Text] / V.I. Abdukarimov // Management sciences in modern Russia. 2014. T. 1. No. 1. pp. 169-175.
4. Avdeeva E.A. Priorities of innovative development of Russia [Text] / E.A. Avdeeva // Current problems of economic theory and practice: collection of articles. scientific tr. Krasnodar: KubSU, 2013. Vol. 15. pp. 50-57.
5. Avdeeva E.A. Problems of innovative development in Russia [Text] / E.A. Avdeeva, L.R. Gafiyatullina // Current issues of economic sciences. 2015. No. 42. P. 40-42.
6. Aidarkina, E.E. Analysis of the strategy of innovative development of the Russian Federation [Text] / E.E. Aidarkina, V.A. Avtaikina // Economy and society. 2015. No. 5-1(18). pp. 36-39.
7. Alekseev, A.V. Strategy for innovative development of the Russian Federation for the period until 2020, assessment of adequacy to the requirements of the time [Text] / A.V. Alekseev // Interexpo Geo-Siberia. 2012. T. 2. No. 2. pp. 106-111.
8. Valdaytsev, S.V. Small innovative entrepreneurship [Text]: textbook / S.V. Valdaytsev, N.N. Molchanov. M.: Prospekt, 2016. 536 p.
9. Voronina, Yu. Your software is closer [Text] / Yu. Voronina // Russian business newspaper. 2014. No. 46. P. 4.
10. Gafforova, E.B. Current state of the regulatory framework for regulating innovation activity in Russia [Text] / E.B. Gafforova, Yu.N. Mansurov, E.Ya. Repina // Law and education. 2013. No. 3. pp. 21-27.
11. Gorfinkel, V.Ya. Innovative entrepreneurship: a textbook for universities [Text] / V.Ya. Gorfinkel, A.I. Bazilevich, T.G. Popadiuk. M.: Yurait-Izdat, 2013. 523 p.
12. Jafarov, E.A. Features of the development of innovative activity in Russia [Text] / E.A. Jafarov // Transport business of Russia. 2012. No. 5. pp. 227-229.
13. Kazantsev, N.M. Economic and legal institutions for regulating regional development of the Russian Federation: monograph [Text] / N.M. Kazantsev, E.M. Buchwald, A.R. Bakhtizin. M.: Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law under the Government of the Russian Federation, 2013.
14. Kirillov, A.V. Management of innovative activities at the current stage of development of Russia [Text] / A.V. Kirillov // Materials of the Afanasyev Readings. 2014. No. 1. pp. 139-143.
15. Komov, M.S. Directions for development and activation of innovative activity in Russia [Text] / M.S. Komov // Bulletin of scientific works of the Bryansk branch of MIIT. 2014. No. 1(5). pp. 50-53.
16. Konoplev, S.E. Innovative activity in Russia: concept and dynamics of development / S.E. Konoplev // Reputationology. 2014. No. 1-2(29-30). pp. 97-101.
17. Kravets, A.V. Innovative economy of Russia: problems and prospects for economic growth [Text] / A.V. Kravets // Creative Economy. 2016. Volume 10. No. 1. P. 21-34.
18. Markeev, A.I. Legal regulation of innovation activity: textbook / A.I. Markeev [electronic resource]. Access mode: SPS ConsultantPlus. 2015.
19. Mulach, M.V. Strategy for innovative development of the Russian Federation [Text] / M.V. Mulach // Youth scientific and technical bulletin. 2014.№7. P. 36.
20. Fundamentals of innovation: Textbook [Text] / Ed. ed. prof. B.I. Poor. Nizhny Novgorod: Publishing House of Nizhny Novgorod State University, 2014. 303 p.
21. Programs for innovative development of companies with state participation: intermediate results and priorities [Text] / Gershman M.A., Zinina T.S., Romanov M.A. and etc.; scientific ed. L.M. Gokhberg, A.N. Klepach, P.B. Rudnik and others; National research University "Higher School of Economics". M.: National Research University Higher School of Economics, 2015. P. 12.
22. Russian economy in 2015. Trends and prospects. Issue 37. M.: Gaidar Institute, 2016. 472 p.
23. Sagay, O.V. Innovative activity as the basis for modernization of the Russian economy [Text] / O.V. Sagay // Trade and economic problems of regional business space. 2013. No. 1. pp. 46-47.
24. Tatarenko, N.N. Mechanism of tax incentives and regulation of innovation activity in Russia [Text] / N.N. Tatarenko // Taxes and financial law. 2012. No. 9. pp. 102-108.
25. Trifonova, E.Yu. Key objectives and current results of the strategy for innovative development of the Russian Federation [Text] / E.Yu.
    Trifonova, T.E. Maslova // In the book: Restructuring of the Russian economy and industrial policy Proceedings of a scientific and practical conference with foreign participation. Edited by A.V. Babkina. 2015. pp. 43-48.
26. Filatov, V.V. Current problems of investing in innovative activities in Russia at the present stage of development [Text] / V.V. Filatov, M.G. Mirgorodskaya, A.A. Tarasov // Bulletin of the University (State University of Management). 2012. No. 14-1. pp. 149-155.
27. Shchetkin, I.E. Prospects for the development of investment and innovation activities in Russia [Text] / I.E. Shchetkin // European Social Science Journal. 2012. No. 9-1(25). pp. 324-332.
28. Shchitova, A.N. Innovation policy of the Russian economy [Text] / A.N. Shchitova // Innovative economics: materials of the international. scientific conf. (Kazan, October 2014). Kazan: Buk, 2014. pp. 6-11.



Application

Annex 1

Classification of territorial resources as factors determining the innovative development of the socio-economic system

Appendix 2

Degree of involvement of state-owned companies in various types of innovation activities, % of the number of companies surveyed

Appendix 3

Assessing the impact of the geopolitical situation on the development of innovation activity in Russia

Appendix 4

Share of foreign software products in the Russian Federation

If you are interested in help with WRITING YOUR WORK, according to individual requirements - it is possible to order assistance in development on the presented topic - Innovation (institutional, innovative development of the Russian Federation) ... or similar. Our services will already be subject to free modifications and support until defense at the university. And it goes without saying that your work will be checked for plagiarism and guaranteed not to be published early. To order or estimate the cost of individual work, go to