Library
|
Your profile |
Finance and Management
Reference:
Dolgih E.A., Parshintseva L.S.
Assessment of the innovative development of Russian Federation regions
// Finance and Management.
2024. № 3.
P. 37-56.
DOI: 10.25136/2409-7802.2024.3.71213 EDN: XVUTKZ URL: https://en.nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=71213
Assessment of the innovative development of Russian Federation regions
DOI: 10.25136/2409-7802.2024.3.71213EDN: XVUTKZReceived: 08-07-2024Published: 16-07-2024Abstract: The object of the study was the innovative development of the regions Russian Federation. The subject of the study is the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of the innovative development of the regions Russian Federation. The aim of the work is to develop and test a methodology for analyzing regions by the level of innovative development, as well as to identify the place of the Russian Federation on the world stage. The assessment of Russia's position in the international community from the point of view of innovative development was carried out on the basis of the values and ranking of countries on the Global Innovation Index. The differentiation of regions by the level of innovative development was carried out taking into account the author's system of indicators and the developed three-stage analysis methodology. As a result of the analysis, the strengths and weaknesses of the country were identified. Recently, the position of the Russian Federation on the world stage in terms of innovative development has weakened, which was facilitated, in particular, by the consequences of the coronavirus pandemic, Western sanctions and other external and internal causes. When assessing the state and potential of innovative development of a country, it is necessary to take into account its peculiarities, including territorial ones. The analysis of the regions of the Russian Federation for the development and implementation of innovations showed their significant differentiation and allowed us to identify the leading and most "vulnerable" regions from the perspective of innovative development. The developed methodology is effective, as it is based on a systematic scientifically based approach and involves an assessment of both individual areas of innovative development of the country and an assessment of their interaction. Keywords: innovations, multidimensional grouping, synthetic latent category, international aspect, regional differentiation, competitiveness, rating, methodology, statistical analysis, innovative developmentThis article is automatically translated. You can find original text of the article here. Introduction. One of the main vectors of the development of modern global competition is the level of development of national innovation systems. In the modern world, the concept of progress is almost directly related to innovation and new or improved technologies. It has become obvious that the basis for stable economic growth of states is the dynamic and constant development of the innovation sector. In fact, competition increases only between developed countries, which have the opportunity to invest huge amounts of money in innovative activities. As a result, the barrier between rich and poor countries is only getting stronger [1, 9, 10]. Materials and methods. The article uses data from the Global Innovation Index for the period 2019-2023 to assess Russia's position on the world stage, as well as official statistical data posted on the EMISS website. The regulatory legal framework in the field of innovative development consists of Federal laws, in particular, Federal Law No. 127-FZ dated 08/23/1996 "On Science and State Scientific and Technical Policy", Decrees of the President of the Russian Federation (for example, Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 145 dated 02/28/2024 "On the Strategy of Scientific and Technical Development of the Russian Federation"), Government documents Of the Russian Federation (for example, Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated December 27, 2019 No. 1863 "On Industrial Technoparks and management companies of industrial technoparks"). It should be noted that most regions have adopted regional laws on innovation and innovation policy. For example, such a law is in force in the Kaluga Region, Moscow, the Moscow Region, St. Petersburg, the Novosibirsk Region, the Republic of Tatarstan and other subjects. At the same time, there is no unified legal regulation of innovative development at the federal level, which is an obstacle to the uniform development of innovations in the country. The results of the study were obtained using such scientific methods as time series analysis methods, methods for evaluating synthetic latent categories, methods of multidimensional grouping of data, methods of variation analysis, tabular and graphical analysis methods. Discussion. Rapid scientific and technological progress and, as a result, digitalization of all spheres of society's life allow us to reach a qualitatively new standard of living for the population, while traditional formats of interaction between people, business structures and authorities require immediate modernization. Humanity is on the threshold of a new global technological revolution, and the country's position on the world stage in the near future directly depends on how timely and quickly science and entrepreneurship will be mobilized. The international aspect of the development of innovation activity. To assess the competitiveness of countries in the international arena from the point of view of their innovative development, the Global Innovation Index (hereinafter – GII) began to be calculated and published in 2007. It is published on an annual basis by the World Intellectual Property Organization together with a Network of Academic Partners [19]. Currently, the GII represents the most complete and meaningful set of indicators characterizing the innovation potential of various countries. From year to year, the Index includes a different number of indicators, it is calculated as the average of two sub-indexes, which are combined into 7 blocks (Table 1). Table 1 – Structure of the Global Innovation Index [19]
Based on this, the final GII is the ratio of the costs of innovative activities of countries to the resulting effect from such activities. This study allows us to objectively assess how effectively various countries of the world are implementing innovations and new technologies, as well as visually examine the dynamics of countries' positions over a period of time [11, 12]. The most relevant research currently is GII-2023. The report is titled "Innovation in the face of Uncertainty." It presents a rating of innovation systems from 132 countries around the world, and the Index itself includes 80 indicators. According to the aggregate innovation index, Russia was ranked 51st with a value of 33.3% [19]. According to the GII-2023 report, Switzerland ranks first in the ranking as the country with the most innovatively developed economy in the world. Its cumulative innovation index in 2023 was 67.6 points. Sweden (64.2 points) and the USA (63.5 points) are also among the three most innovatively developed countries (Fig. 1). Source: built by the authors according to [19] Figure 1 – GII values for the leading countries and the Russian Federation in 2023
It can be noted that most of the countries included in the list of leaders in terms of innovation are European. Countries from Asia (Republic of Korea, Singapore, China and Japan) and North America (Canada, USA) are also represented here. Russia's position weakened over the period from 2019 to 2023 – it dropped 5 places in the ranking and left the top 50 countries in terms of innovation (Table 2). Table 2 – Russia's positions in the Global Innovation Index for the period from 2019 to 2023
Source: [19] Over the past five years, Switzerland has been ranked first in the ranking every year. A fairly stable situation was observed in Sweden and the United States, which occupied the 2nd and 3rd places, respectively, having changed places only in 2022. It should be noted that in various years, some countries were included in the list of leaders for the first time (France in 2020, Canada in 2022). Ireland, on the contrary, has left the list under consideration since 2021. Changes in the ranking of the world's leading countries in terms of innovative development are shown in Figure 2. Source: [19] Figure 2 – Dynamics of the positions of the leading countries in the GII ranking in 2019-2023.
As noted earlier, the aggregate innovation index consists of two sub-indexes: innovation resources and innovation results. Russia's position on innovation resources for the period from 2019 to 2023 has noticeably weakened – the country has gone down from 41st to 58th place (Fig. 3). As for the results of innovation, the country has risen from 59th to 53rd place during the period under review. Despite the positive trend, Russia's position remains quite weak. The country is located between the Philippines and the UAE in terms of innovation resources, and between Vietnam and Brazil in terms of innovation results [4, 19].
* Number of countries in 2019 – 129, in 2020 - 131, in 2021-2023 – 132 Source: built by the authors according to [19] Figure 3 – Russia's position in the ranking of innovation subindexes for the period from 2019 to 2023.
An analysis of Russia's positions in the context of the indicators included in the GII showed that Russia's strengths in the field of innovation are human capital and research, since Russia's position in terms of this indicator is the highest (26th place in 2023) (Table 3). According to other indicators, our country is no higher than 44 places. It should be noted that the country weakened its position on most indicators for the period from 2019 to 2023. The exception is the level of market development and the results of creative activity, according to which it rose in the ranking to 5th and 19th place, respectively [13, 14, 19]. Table 3 – Russia's positions on the components of the innovation index for the period from 2019 to 2023.
Source: compiled by the authors according to [19]
The analysis of the composition of the innovation index made it possible to highlight the strengths of Russia in 2023.: 1) Human capital and research: graduates in the field of natural sciences and engineering (13th place), admission to higher education institutions (16th place). 2) Infrastructure: electricity generation (19th place). 3) The level of market development: the scale of the domestic market (1st place). 4) Results in the field of knowledge and technology: utility models (8th place), patents (18th place). The weaknesses of Russia that negatively affect the aggregate innovation index include: 1) Institutions: operational stability for business (124th place), rule of law (114th place), quality of regulation (101st place). 2) Infrastructure: GDP per unit of energy consumption (120th place), environmental protection standard (110th place). 3) The level of market development: recipients of venture investments (100th place). 4) Results in the field of knowledge and technology: quality management standard (109th place). Thus, by 2023, Russia ranks 51st in the world in terms of innovative development. Our country is inferior to almost all European countries, as well as many Asian countries. Currently, Russia is developing according to the Concept of Technological Development, which was approved for the period up to 2030, the Strategy of Scientific and Technological Development and the Presidential Decree "On National Development Goals of the Russian Federation for the period up to 2030". Innovation policy serves as a driving force for achieving high competitiveness and ensuring faster economic and social progress. Analysis of the differentiation of Russian regions in terms of innovative development. Due to the fact that there are no data for 2023 for most statistical indicators characterizing the innovative development of Russian regions, the analysis was carried out for 2022.In 2022, the level of innovative activity of organizations in Russia amounted to 11%, which is 0.9 percentage points less than in 2021 and 1.9 percentage points higher than in 2019. The share of organizations implementing technological innovations reached 22.8% in 2022, with the largest share among industrial enterprises (20.3%). In addition, 59.8% of high-tech enterprises and 41.7% of medium-tech high-level enterprises carried out technological innovations in Russia [4, 15]. The volume of innovative goods, works, and services at current prices in 2022 increased by 31.1% compared to 2019 and amounted to 6377.2 billion rubles, while it should be noted that the increase in the indicator, in particular, is due to inflationary processes. In the total volume of innovative goods, works, and services, 30.1% were created using Russian results of intellectual activity (RID) [4, 16]. The share of innovative goods, works, and services in the total volume of shipped goods, completed works, and services in 2022 amounted to 5.1%, while the highest value of this indicator for the period 2019-2022 was noted in 2020 (5,7%) [4, 17]. According to the organizations' estimates, the main results of innovation activity were improvement of the quality of goods, works, services (35.4%), preservation of traditional sales markets (30.7%), expansion of the product range (29.4%), increased flexibility of production (19.4%) and growth of production capacities (18,7%) [4, 18]. To assess regional differentiation on the basis of logical analysis and official statistical data, a three-level system of indicators of innovative development of regions was compiled [6] (Fig. 4). Source: developed by the authors Figure 4 – The system of indicators of innovative development
The system of indicators of innovative development includes three levels of detail. At the first level, groups of indicators are identified that allow us to draw a generalizing conclusion about the level of innovative development of regions in two important areas: the development and production of innovations and their implementation. The second level details the groups of indicators highlighted on the first level. For example, the group "Development and production of innovations" includes three subgroups: indicators of innovation development, indicators of innovation activity and indicators of innovation costs, and the group "Results of innovation activity" - indicators of innovation and their effectiveness. The third level of the system of indicators of innovative development includes individual (private) indicators. To conduct an express analysis, two indicators of innovation development and production were selected (the level of innovative activity of organizations, the share of innovative goods, works, services created using the results of intellectual activity, the rights to which belong to Russian copyright holders) and two indicators of their implementation (the volume of innovative goods, works, services as a percentage of the total volume shipped goods, works performed, services, the share of costs for innovative activities in the total volume of innovative goods, works performed, services). Table 4 presents the main characteristics of innovative development in federal districts. Table 4 – Main characteristics of innovative development by federal districts
Source: calculated by the authors according to [20]
As can be seen from Table 4, in 2022, the subjects of the Russian Federation were homogeneous only in terms of the level of innovation activity in the Central and Ural Federal Districts, according to other indicators, both federal districts and Russia as a whole, there is a heterogeneity in the totality of the country's regions. The highest level of innovation activity was observed in the Republic of Tatarstan (32%), the lowest – in the Republic of Ingushetia, in terms of the share of innovative goods, works, and services created from the Spanish. The Chelyabinsk Region was the leader of Russian RID (89.6%), and the lagging regions in this indicator were the Amur, Kurgan, Murmansk, Novgorod, Oryol, Sakhalin, Jewish Autonomous Region, the Republics of Altai, Adygea, Dagestan, Ingushetia, Kabardino-Balkaria, Kalmykia, Karachay-Cherkess, Tyva, Khakassia, Sevastopol, Nenets, Khanty-Mansiysk, Chukotka and Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrugs, Zabaikalsky and Kamchatka Territories (0%). The largest share of innovative goods, completed works, and services in the total volume of shipped goods, completed works, and services of organizations was in the Republic of Mordovia (21.8%), the smallest – in the Nenets Autonomous Okrug (0.06%), and accordingly the largest and smallest value of the share of costs for innovative activities in the total volume of innovative goods performed works and services were provided in the Sakhalin region (39 p.) and the Karachay-Cherkess Republic (2.27%). Thus, there is a need to conduct a multidimensional grouping in order to identify the leading and lagging regions in terms of innovative development according to a set of indicators [2, 7, 8]. The grouping was carried out in three stages. At the first stage, the values of the analyzed indicators were normalized using the method of complete interchangeability, which made it possible to bring all values to a single measurement scale.So, for example, the normalization of the values of indicators aligned with the values of the indicator of innovative development was carried out according to the following formula: (x-min)/(max-min) where: x is the value of the indicator of the analyzed subject; min is the minimum value of the indicator for all subjects of Russia; max is the maximum value of the indicator for all subjects of Russia. The normalization of the values of indicators that are multidirectional with the values of the indicator of innovative development was carried out according to the following formula: (max-x)/(max-min) At the second stage, the total normalized values of two sub-indicators were calculated: the development and production of innovations and the results of innovative activity. At the third stage, the estimates obtained were divided into four quartile groups for each of the sub-indicators. Table 5 shows the results of a multidimensional grouping of regions by the level of innovative development in 2022. Table 5 - Grouping of regions by the level of innovative development in 2022
Source: calculated by the authors according to [20]
The analysis showed that the leaders in terms of innovative development in 2022 were such subjects of the Russian Federation as the Republics of Mordovia, Tatarstan, Udmurt and Mari El, Chelyabinsk, Tula, Rostov, Nizhny Novgorod, Samara, Ulyanovsk and Moscow regions, as well as St. Petersburg. The lagging regions, both in terms of the development and production of innovations and in terms of their implementation, were the Kaliningrad, Astrakhan, Amur and Sakhalin Regions, Karachay-Cherkess, Kabardino-Balkarian Republics, the Republics of Khakassia, Kalmykia, Tyva, the Chechen Republic, the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), as well as the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug and the Jewish Autonomous Region. Regions with a high level of innovation development and production, but at the same time with a fairly low level of their practical implementation, should be noted separately. These subjects include the Voronezh, Lipetsk and Tomsk regions and the Altai Territory. Conclusion. Summing up the completed study, it should be noted that recently Russia's position on the world stage in terms of innovative development has weakened, which was facilitated, in particular, by the consequences of the coronavirus pandemic, Western sanctions and other, both external and internal reasons. When assessing the state and potential of innovative development of a country, it is necessary to take into account its peculiarities, including territorial ones. The analysis of regions for the development and implementation of innovations showed their significant differentiation and made it possible to identify the leading and most "vulnerable" regions from the perspective of innovative development. In our opinion, first of all, it is necessary to form a unified regulatory framework at the federal level in order to achieve a more uniform innovation development. In addition, it is necessary to exchange experience between leading regions and lagging regions on innovative platforms and in the implementation of joint innovative projects. These measures will stimulate innovative development in lagging regions and expand the capabilities of the leading regions, which will have a positive impact on the use of the country's innovative potential as a whole. It should be noted that the author's methodology for assessing the innovative development of Russian regions proposed in this study is effective, since it is based on a systematic scientifically based approach and involves evaluating both individual areas of innovative development and evaluating their interaction. References
1. Akulova, K.I., Semenova, E.A., & Gridneva, N.S. (2019). Problems and prospects of development of the innovative potential of the Russian Federation. Cluster initiatives in the formation of a progressive structure of the national economy. Collection of scientific papers of the 5th International Scientific and Practical Conference, 1, 16-18.
2. Vasiliev, V.L., Sharipov, R.R., & Sitnikov, A.N. (2024). Actual directions of innovative development of Russia: statistical analysis and conclusions. Effective management systems: Quality. The circular economy. Technological sovereignty. Collection of scientific articles of the XI International Scientific and Practical Forum, pp. 55-59. Kazan. 3. Endovitsky, D. A., Treshchevsky, Yu. I., Kanapukhin, P. A., & Kosobutskaya, A. Yu. (2023) Empirical analysis and forecasting of the dynamics of innovative development of Russian regions. Vestnik VSU. Series: Economics and Management, 1, 51-64. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.17308/econ.2023.1/10932 4. Indicators of innovation activity: 2024: statistical collection. V. V. Vlasova, L. M. Gokhberg, G. A. Gracheva, etc.; National research. Higher School of Economics Univ., Moscow: Higher School of Economics. 5. Krutova, N.A., Ivanchina, O.V., & Babenkova, A.A. (2023). Analysis of the level of development of technological entrepreneurship and innovation activity in modern Russia. Bulletin of SamGUPS, 1(59), 49-59. 6. Kudryashova, E.V., & Ivanova, N.A. (2024). Analysis of the current state of innovative business development. Financial business, 4(250), 58-60. 7. Mirzoyan, M.V. (2017). The influence of human capital on innovative development. Eurasian Union of Scientists, 11-2(44), 49-52. 8. Salimyanova, I.G., & Kruchinkin, A.V. (2023). Analysis of instruments of the level of innovative development based on methods of cross-country comparisons. Management and economics of the national economy of Russia. collection of articles of the VII International Scientific and Practical Conference, pp. 503-508. Penza. 9. Sidorenko, S.V., Pershina, T.A., Khatuntseva, M.A., & Bikbaeva, A.R. (2023). Analysis of the dynamics and structure of indicators of scientific and innovative information development of the federal districts of the Russian Federation. Bulletin of the University, 11, 2018-226. 10. Ivanov Semen, L., & Terebova Svetlana, V. (2024). Innovative Entrepreneurship Development in the Region: Challenges and Ways to Address Them. Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast, 1, 159-177. 11. Efimova, M.R., Dolgikh, E.A., Pershina, T.A., & Parshintseva, L.S. (2021). The Methodology for Multivariate Statistical Analysis of Innovation Potentials: The Case of Russia. In: Bogoviz, A.V., Suglobov, A.E., Maloletko, A.N., Kaurova, O.V., Lobova, S.V. (Eds). Frontier Information Technology and Systems Research in Cooperative Economics. Studies in Systems, Decision and Control, vol. 316. Springer, Cham. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57831-2_25 12. Konopatskaya, E.A. (2022). Analysis of Innovative Development of the International Community Countries and Russia. In: Ashmarina, S.I., Mantulenko, V.V. (Eds). Proceedings of the International Conference Engineering Innovations and Sustainable Development. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, vol. 210. Springer, Cham. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90843-0_63 13. Konopatskaya, E.A. (2022). Analysis of Innovative Development of the International Community Countries and Russia. In: Ashmarina, S.I., Mantulenko, V.V. (Eds). Proceedings of the International Conference Engineering Innovations and Sustainable Development. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering. vol. 210. Springer, Cham. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90843-0_63 14. Kuzmin, O., Bublyk, M, Shakhno, A., Korolenko, O., & Lashkun, H. (2020). Innovative development of human capital in the conditions of globalization. In: Semerikov S, Chukharev S, Sakhno S, Striuk A, Osadchyi V, Solovieva V, Vakaliuk T, Nechypurenko P, Bondarenko O, Danylchuk H (Eds.). Proceedings of the International conference on sustainable futures: environmental, technological, social and economic matters (ICSF 2020). E3S web of conferences, vol. 166, pp 13011. 15. Merzlikina, G.S. (2020). Innovative development of a region: Essential Architecture of indicators. St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University Journal. Economics, 13(5), 50-64. doi:10.18721/JE.13504 16. Naumov, Il’ya V., & Nikulina Natalia, L. (2023). Scenario Modeling and Forecasting of the Spatial Heterogeneity of Innovation Development in Russia. Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast. Volume 16, Issue 4, pp. 71-87. 17. Ochuba, Usman, Amoo, Okafor, & Akinrinola (2024). Innovations in business models through strategic analytics and management: conceptual exploration for sustainable growth. International Journal of Management & Entrepreneurship Research. Volume 6, Issue 3. Pp. 554-566. 18. Xomidov, M. (2023). Analysis of the current state of innovation implementation in improving the competitiveness of industry. International journal of theoretical and practical research, 3(02), 56-64. 19. World Intellectual Property Organization Retrieved from https://www.wipo.int/global_innovation_index/en 20. Official website of the Unified Interdepartmental Information and Statistical System Retrieved from https://fedstat.ru
First Peer Review
Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
Second Peer Review
Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
Third Peer Review
Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
|