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

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]

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.