Рус Eng Cn Translate this page:
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate
Library
Your profile

Back to contents

Finance and Management
Reference:

Assessment of the innovative development of Russian Federation regions

Dolgih Ekaterina Alekseevna

ORCID: 0000-0003-2266-3326

PhD in Economics

Associate Professor; Department of Statistics; State University of Management

99 Ryazansky Ave., Moscow, 109542, Russia

ekaterina-d@inbox.ru
Parshintseva Lidiya Sergeevna

ORCID: 0000-0002-2256-7070

PhD in Economics

Associate Professor; Department of Statistics; State University of Management

99 Ryazansky Ave., Moscow, 109542, Russia

lsparshintseva@yandex.ru
Other publications by this author
 

 

DOI:

10.25136/2409-7802.2024.3.71213

EDN:

XVUTKZ

Received:

08-07-2024


Published:

16-07-2024


Abstract: 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 development

This 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.
Technological evolution, the problems of innovation research and the role of information technology in economic development began to be discussed at the beginning of the 20th century. The theoretical basis for the research of innovations in his works was laid by the Austrian economist J. Schumpeter. In 1912, J. Schumpeter, in his work "Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung", introduced the concept of innovation for the first time and justified the role of entrepreneurial innovations in economic development. At the same time, he identified five main types of entrepreneurial innovations: the manufacture of a new one; the introduction of a new one; the development of a new sales market; obtaining a new source of raw materials or semi-finished products; carrying out appropriate reorganization.
In 1956, the English scientist J. D. Bernal conducted a fundamental study in which he analyzed the history of the relationship between the development of science and technology and the development of society from the birth of science to the present day, which was of great importance for the subsequent development of the theoretical base.
Since the mid-80s of the 20th century, in the works of such scientists as A. Anchishkin, S. Glazyev, O. Golichenko, A. Dynkin, N. Ivanova, B. Kuzyk, B. Lundvall, G. Mensch, R. Nelson, S. Winter, K. Freeman, Y. Yakovets, new approaches to the classification of innovations began to form Concepts of national and regional innovation systems are being developed.
In particular, G. Mensch classified innovations into three groups: basic, improving and pseudo-innovations. In his book, he established the relationship between basic innovation, economic growth and cycling.
R. Nelson and S. In 1982, Winter developed an evolutionary economic theory based on the belief that the main factor of economic change is scientific, technical and organizational progress at the micro level.
It is impossible to ignore the ideas of Academician A. Anchishkin concerning the problems of innovative development of Russia. A. Anchishkin attached great importance to the role of public policy in this issue, believed that the requirement to take into account the determinism of scientific and technological development was important, assumed the need to ensure demand for scientific achievements, new technologies and innovations, saw the need for an increase in science costs, assigned important importance to reliable statistics as the basis for making effective management decisions.
A great contribution to the development of the theoretical basis for the study of innovations was made by the Russian scientist S. Glazyev (the concept of technological structures). According to this concept, the world community is now at the turn of the emergence of a new technological order, the basic directions of which will be nanotechnology, biotechnology, global information networks and alternative energy.
But. Dynkin and N. Ivanova carried out a study of the economic aspects of the innovation process in the business sector of developed countries, which is of practical importance in shaping policy in the field of innovation and science.
Of great fundamental importance is the scientific work of B. N. Kuzyk and Yu. V. Yakovets "Russia 2050: an innovative breakthrough strategy", which summarizes the scientific works of scientists from developed countries on innovative development, outlines the basics of the innovative breakthrough strategy and substantiates the priorities of the innovation strategy.
Speaking about the theory of innovation, it is impossible not to recall the concept of national innovation systems, the founder of which is considered to be A. Lundvall, who described its main aspects in detail in his scientific work in 1992, while the very concept of "national innovation system" was introduced into scientific circulation back in 1987 by K. Freeman.
O. Golichenko in his scientific work "The National Innovation System of Russia: the state and ways of development" carried out a detailed analysis of the national innovation system, containing a detailed description of the structure of the innovation system at the national level, an assessment of its main elements, identification of the most important problems in this area and the proposal of ways to solve them.
Today, in the scientific world, many works are devoted to issues of innovation policy, the formation of innovative ecosystems, as well as the methodological side of studying the issue. For example, the work of A. Abaev is devoted to the issues of the organizational and economic mechanism for the formation of scientific and innovative policy at the regional level, while the formulated methodological foundations for the formation of scientific and innovative potential are important in the development of the theoretical base, in the work of L. Klinovenko for the first time a comprehensive development of the conceptual foundations for the formation of state innovation policy was carried out.
In international practice, special attention has recently been paid to the impact of innovative technologies on the standard of living of the population [14, 15, 16], among Russian researchers this issue is highlighted in detail in the works of S. A. Ayvazyan, N. M. Rimashevskaya, V. Kossov, etc. The impact of innovations on demographic processes is studied in the works of F. Lichtenberg, E. Ford, K. Murphy.
Arkhipova M. Yu. made a great contribution to the development of the methodology of statistical research of innovative and technological activities in Russia. Of particular interest to the purpose and objectives of the project is the methodology proposed by Arkhipova M. Yu. for comparative analysis of investment attractiveness and innovative and technological activity of Russian regions and, in particular, methodological approaches to assessing the degree of innovative and technological attractiveness of Russian regions and factor analysis determining the formation of regional innovation systems.
The research of the leading Russian scientist L. Gokhberg in the field of science, innovation, ICT and education is of great practical importance. For example, the scientific work of a team of authors led by L. Gokhberg provides a study of trends in scientific and technological development that have the greatest impact on the development of the economy in the long term. His works present the main methodological approaches to assessing the boundaries and scale of the Internet economy, unlike similar studies in this area, the work is based on official statistical data and is consistent with the System of National Accounts. L. Gokhberg was the first to develop a methodology for a comprehensive statistical study of science, justified the need and identified ways to translate science statistics to international standards.
Numerous works by M. Efimova are devoted to the development of science and innovation. In her works, together with other outstanding Russian scientists, the circumstances of the current global crisis were revealed, in order to overcome which it was proposed to increase the innovative activity of Russian business. A study of the main patterns of science development in Russia has also been carried out, and problems in the organization of modern science that pose an obstacle to long-term economic growth, among which human resources play a key role. The problem of assessing innovative development at the regional level is considered in the article by M. Efimova in collaboration with T. Burtseva.
In Russia, a significant role in the formation of scientific potential and the promotion of innovation is assigned to the regions For effective management of scientific and innovative activities, stimulating their development requires a methodology for comprehensive statistical analysis of innovative development of regions, adapted to the modern challenges of progress and the capabilities of each specific region.
The political aspect in the study of innovative development of regions is consecrated in the works of A. Perezolova, D. Zezyulin, A. Ryabinin and other scientists. At the same time, insufficient attention has been paid to the issues of developing a methodology for complex statistical analysis of scientific and innovative activities of the regions.
The analysis of scientific papers allows us to conclude that it is advisable to assess the innovative development of Russian regions.

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]

Block

The component

Number of indicators

Subindex 1. Available resources and conditions for innovation

Institutes

Institutional environment

Regulatory environment

Business environment

2

3

2

Human capital and research

Education

Higher education

Research and development

5

3

4

Infrastructure

Information and communication technologies

General infrastructure

Environmental sustainability

4

3

3

The level of market development

Lending

Investment

Trade diversification and market scale

3

4

3

The level of business development

Knowledge workers

Innovative connections

Assimilation of knowledge

5

5

5

Subindex 2. Achieved practical results of innovation

Knowledge and technology outcomes

Creating knowledge

The impact of knowledge

Dissemination of knowledge

5

4

5

The results of creative activity

Intangible assets

Creative products and services

Online creativity

4

4

4

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

Year

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

Place in the ranking

46

47

45

47

51

GII, score

37,6

35,63

36,60

34,3

33,3

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.

_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.

Subindex

Indicator

Year

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

Innovation resources

Institutes

74

71

67

89

110

Human capital and research

23

30

29

27

26

Infrastructure

62

60

63

62

72

The level of market development

61

55

61

48

56

The level of business development

35

42

44

44

44

The results of innovation

Knowledge and technology outcomes

47

50

48

51

54

The results of creative activity

72

60

56

48

53

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

FO

The level of innovation activity, %

The share of innovative goods, works, and services created using Russian RID, %

The share of innovative goods, completed works, and services, %

The share of costs for innovative activities in the total volume of shipped innovative goods, completed works, services, %

The average value

Coefficient of variation, %

The average value

Coefficient of variation, %

The average value

Coefficient of variation, %

The average value

Coefficient of variation, %

Central Federal District

11.0

23.7

33.0

59.3

5.1

50.4

54.2

95.9

C-ZFO

10.6

34.3

16.2

44.7

5.7

76.9

24.6

111.9

Southern Federal District

10.8

63.8

5.8

70.9

3.8

88.3

39.1

106.7

C-KFO

4.0

42.4

0.3

113.1

7.3

50.2

9.5

692.5

PFD

15.9

35.8

36.8

47.3

10.2

52.4

30.8

61.0

UFA

9.9

29.1

44.8

68.8

2.9

133.7

28.3

370.9

SFO

9.2

42.6

12.5

89.4

2.1

103.6

98.1

253.3

Far Eastern Federal District

7.4

33.6

2.2

164.7

2.1

180.6

102.3

1064.8

Russia as a whole

11.0

44.5

30.1

56.8

5.1

83.3

41.7

992.5

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

Groups on the sub-indicator "Development and production of innovations"

Groups based on the sub-indicator "Results of innovation activity"

high level

above the median value

below the median value

low level

high level

Republics of Mordovia, Tatarstan, Udmurt Republic, Mari El, regions: Chelyabinsk, Tula, Rostov, Nizhny Novgorod, Samara, Ulyanovsk, Moscow, St. Petersburg

Republic of Bashkortostan, regions: Ryazan, Vladimir, Smolenskaya, Perm Krai, Moscow

regions: Voronezh, Lipetsk, Tomsk, Altai Territory

above the median

regions: Belgorod, Sverdlovsk

Regions: Kirov, Omsk, Bryansk, Yaroslavl, Novosibirsk, Penza, Ivanovo, Chuvash Republic

regions: Kaluga, Kurgan, Saratov, Vologda, Republics: Komi, North Ossetia-Alania, territories: Primorsky, Krasnoyarsk

regions: Oryol, Pskov, Trans-Baikal Territory

below the median

regions: Murmansk, Novgorod, Orenburg, Tver, Republic of Adygea, territories: Stavropol, Khabarovsk

regions: Tambov, Tyumen, Kursk, Volgograd, Sevastopol

regions: Leningrad, Arkhangelsk, Kemerovo, Republic of Crimea, Kamchatka Territory

regions: Magadan, Kostroma, Irkutsk, Chukotka Autonomous Okrug

low level

The Republic of Buryatia

The Republics of Altai and Dagestan

Arkhangelsk region, Republic of: Karelia, Ingushetia, Krasnodar Territory

regions: Kaliningrad, Astrakhan, Amur, Sakhalin, Republics: Karachay-Cherkess, Kabardino-Balkarian, Khakassia, Kalmykia, Tyva, Chechen, Sakha (Yakutia), Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug, Jewish Autonomous Region

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.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The subject of the study. The subject of the study is the relations arising in the process of innovative development of Russia. The research methodology used by the author is based on the following methods of scientific cognition: comparison, analysis, synthesis of theoretical material. Relevance. The topic proposed by the author seems to be very relevant. First of all, this is due to the fact that the innovative development of the state is one of the components of its economic growth. Scientific novelty. The scientific component of the study is to obtain the results of a multidimensional grouping of regions according to the level of innovative development. Bibliography. The analysis of the bibliography allows us to conclude that the author has studied a number of scientific papers on the subject under study. There are references to foreign sources, in general, the list of references consists of 20 titles. Paragraphs 11.14 of the list of references should be drawn up in accordance with GOST. Appeal to opponents. The article contains targeted links to research. There is no review of scientists' research on similar issues and no critical assessment of them. What is the difference from similar studies? What is the new contribution of the author (in comparison with other numerous researchers)? Style, structure, content. The style of the article is scientific and meets the requirements of the journal. The article highlights the structural sections according to the semantic principle. The author conducts a structural analysis of the global innovation index at a good theoretical level. Special attention is paid to the analysis of the main characteristics of innovative development in federal districts. As comments and recommendations, I would also like to note the following. 1. The quality of Figure 2 needs to be improved so that the text on it is clearer and more readable. 2. When analyzing the composition of the innovation index, the author identifies strengths, each of which begins with a point, for better perception by the reader it is better to replace either with – or with 1), 2) ... etc. 3. According to the text, the author cites the "Decree of the President " On the national development goals of the Russian Federation for the period up to in 2030." Currently, a new decree is in force, which is called: "Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated 05/07/2024 No. 309 "On National development Goals of the Russian Federation for the period up to 2030 and for the future up to 2036"". 4. In this connection, what is the grouping of regions by the level of innovative development for 2022? If it is not possible to use more recent statistics, then this needs to be explained. The first two stages of the methodology should be described in more detail. Conclusions, the interest of the readership. The presented material may open up new prospects for further research. It will be of interest to those who study the statistical data of innovative development. The article partially meets the requirements of the journal "Finance and Management" for this kind of work, and is recommended for revision.

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.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

economics" as presented.  This article is relevant within the framework of the modern spatial development of the country, the topic of the reviewed article refers to the problematic area of research on innovation in the Russian Federation and its regions. In recent years, the scientific and innovative sphere has begun to play an increasingly important role due to various external and internal factors. External factors include increased global competition for resources, political and economic changes in the world, the transition to a knowledge society, as well as environmental problems. Among the internal factors, the aging of the population, the deterioration of its health, a decrease in the level of education, the need to modernize the Russian economy and solve regional problems are highlighted. The subject of the article is to identify regions with high and low levels of innovation development and production. The research methodology in the article is a systematization and analysis of statistical indicators characterizing the innovative development of federal districts and regions of the Russian Federation. The scientific novelty of the article includes the proposed methodology and system of indicators of innovative development and the analysis of differentiation of regions of the Russian Federation on their basis. However, it seems to us that the author failed to provide proper arguments in support of his conclusions, or they are not sufficiently disclosed in the text of the article. Main remarks on the content of the article: 1. In accordance with the content of the article, we propose to clarify the title of the article "Assessment of innovative development of Russian regions". 2. The material of the article as a whole is structured in accordance with internal logic, divided into five thematic parts, at the end of the article the conclusions for the scientific community are presented. The list of references contains a sufficient number of sources (twenty publications), including foreign scientists. However, the appeal to the opponents is not presented, the article does not analyze the works of foreign and domestic colleagues on this topic, the elimination of this remark will have a positive impact, it is important to clarify what the increase in scientific knowledge is expressed in. Thus, we propose to add a section "Discussion", within which the author will be able to provide additional arguments that the proposed methodology for assessing the innovative development of Russian regions is effective. 3. We also consider it necessary in conclusion to give the author's recommendations on improving the level of innovative development of the Russian Federation as a whole and individual lagging regions, determining the main and priority directions from the point of view of state policy. 4. The regulatory framework of this aspect has not been properly analyzed, for example, federal legislation regarding the priorities of innovative development, regional state programs for scientific and technological development, etc. The work does not fully meet the requirements for scientific research, and may be recommended for publication in a scientific journal after finalizing the comments submitted.

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.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The subject of the study. The article, based on the title, should be devoted to the assessment of the innovative development of the regions of Russia. The content of the article does not contradict the stated topic. Perhaps it makes sense to rename the article to "Methodology for assessing the innovative development of Russian regions." The research methodology is based on the use of both general scientific methods (analysis, synthesis, grouping) and special (economic and mathematical). An additional positive impression of the article is formed due to the active use of graphical tools. The relevance of the study of issues related to ensuring the innovative development of Russian regions is beyond doubt, since this affects not only the development of an individual subject of the Russian Federation, but also the entire country as a whole. It is important to emphasize the priority of the issues of spatial development of the Russian Federation. Scientific novelty is present in the scientific article submitted for review. In particular, the author's methodology for assessing the innovative development of Russian regions is of the greatest interest. It would be advantageous to indicate potential users of this technique with specific effects from such use. Style, structure, content. The style of presentation is scientific. The structure of the article is built by the author. At the same time, it is recommended to rename the "discussion" section to "the degree of development of the topic", since the content corresponds exactly to this heading. At the same time, based on the results of the review, it is recommended to identify a list of issues that were not raised by the author. At the same time, it would be good to form the section "Discussion of research results" before the section with conclusions. It seems that the addition of the section "Discussion of the results obtained" would significantly strengthen the author's judgments and the formed positive impression of the article. The author consistently presents the material in a meaningful way, but it is recommended to revise the judgments: in some cases they are not accompanied by a justification of the position or are accompanied by a violation of logical and causal relationships (for example, "the author's methodology proposed in this study for assessing the innovative development of Russian regions is effective, since it is based on a systematic scientifically based approach and assumes an assessment of how individual areas of innovative development, as well as an assessment of their interaction"). Also, the author does not use data from 2023: it is recommended to provide an explanation in this regard in the text. The author is recommended to draw conclusions based on the results of grouping regions by the level of innovative development: what exactly follows from the fact that a particular region falls into a certain group? Bibliography. The bibliographic list consists of 20 titles. It is valuable that it contains both domestic and foreign scientific publications. This allowed the author to carry out a multifaceted study of the scientific literature on the research topic. Appeal to opponents. Despite the presence of the "discussion" section, there was no discussion of the results obtained as such. The elimination of this remark would significantly increase the level of demand for a scientific article. In particular, it is recommended to show how the author's methodology differs from those that currently exist in the scientific literature and expert agencies. Conclusions, the interest of the readership. Taking into account all the above, we conclude that after making clarifying adjustments, the article can be published in the journal Finance and Management. The article will be of interest to a wide readership: in the scientific community, in expert circles, public authorities of the Russian Federation and subjects of the Russian Federation.