DOI: 10.33917/es-1.187.2023.26-35

Technological changes form the basis of modern economic development, however, in order to study their influence and features, as well as to develop control actions, it is necessary to adequately measure the level of technological effectiveness of the economy. The purpose of the study is to identify the limitations of existing approaches and methods for measuring technological development, indicating what prospects there are in terms of their improvement or the development of new ways to assess the level of manufacturability and emerging technologies. The methodology is based on the economic theory of technological development, statistical approaches to measuring the level of technological effectiveness of the economy, performance assessment, and comparative analysis is applied. The result is reduced to a reasonable position that the existing methods for measuring the level of manufacturability essentially do not reveal the true content of this concept, do not reflect the manufacturability of the economy. Thus, it is required to revise and introduce new accounting, measurement and statistical procedures covering the issues of technological development. The measuring apparatus for technological modes, the “knowledge economy” also requires perfection, which is proposed in this study.

By modes, it is important to measure the distribution of policy instruments and the structure of technologies in each mode, for which accounting for specific types of technologies and the construction of technological maps can be used. The “knowledge economy”, which symbolizes a high level of technological development, needs to be measured in its purest form by the volume of sectors responsible for the creation, transfer, replication and application of advanced knowledge. Evaluation of productive jobs needs to be revised — from measuring wages in the workplace, as it is today, to measuring the level of its automation and intellectualization.

References:

1. Glaz’ev S.Yu. Teoriya dolgosrochnogo tekhniko-ekonomicheskogo razvitiya [Theory of Long-term Technical and Economic Development]. Moscow, Vladar, 1993, 310 p.

2. Peres K. Tekhnologicheskie revolyutsii i finansovyi kapital. Dinamika puzyrei i periodov protsvetaniya [Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital. Dynamics of Bubbles and Periods of Prosperity]. Moscow, Delo, 2011, 232 p.

3. Sukharev O.S. Ekonomika tekhnologicheskogo razvitiya [Economics of Technological Developmen]. Moscow, Finansy i statistika, 2008, 480 p.

4. Khelpman E. Zagadka ekonomicheskogo rosta [The Mystery of Economic Growth]. Moscow, Izdatel’stvo instituta Gaidara, 2011, 240 p.

5. Shumpeter I.A. Teoriya ekonomicheskogo razvitiya. Kapitalizm, sotsializm i demokratiya [Theory of Economic Development. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy]. Moscow, Eksmo, 2007, 864 p.

6. Antonelli C., Gehringer А. Technological change, rent and income inequalities: A Schumpeterian approach. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 2017, vol. 115, pp. 85–98.

DOI: 10.33917/es-6.164.2019.136-141

The growing role of knowledge in the list of the main production factors has predetermined the emergence of such economy branch as the knowledge economy. The knowledge economy is becoming a source of growth and development of both an individual organization or enterprise, and the region as a whole. The issues of regional development of the knowledge economy today are actively discussed both at various business sites and at the level of government authorities. In particular, on June 8–9, 2018, the VII Central Russian Economic Forum was held in Kursk, dedicated to the knowledge economy problems in the context of regional development. The article presents a generalized analysis of the issues discussed at the forum in the aspect of scientific and innovative development of the region. Particular attention is paid to the universities’ role in the knowledge economy formation, since the latter are unique drivers for developing innovation and scientific-technological development in the region. The study resulted in the assumption that formation of a knowledge economy in the regional context will become possible in case of active involvement of the regional universities in this process

The article defines the essence of industrial police in the context of the main challenge — objective necessity of modernization of the Russian economy; special attention is given to three debatable aspects of elaboration of the new strategy of industrial police: defining its strategic goal, choice of strategic model of industrial development, defining the main directions of industrial policy. The key importance of the main statements of the Presidential Message to the Federal Assembly for handling these problems is underlined.

The article analyzes three periods of the Russian economy: the transformation crisis of 1990–1998, characterized by depth and duration, the period of regenerative economic recovery in 1999–2008, during which a shift into nationalization and monopolization of the economy took place, as well as the period of 2009–2017, called the “lost decade” by the author, the period of deep financial and socio-economic crisis as part of the global world crisis. Possible prospects for development and ways of entrance into high-quality significant socio-economic growth are described.

The article analyzes three periods of the Russian economy: the transformation crisis of 1990–1998, characterized by depth and duration, the period of regenerative economic recovery in 1999–2008, during which a shift into nationalization and monopolization of the economy took place, as well as the period of 2009–2017, called the “lost decade” by the author, the period of deep financial and socio-economic crisis as part of the global world crisis. Possible prospects for development and ways of entrance into high-quality significant socio-economic growth are described.

After four years of depression (2013–2016), our country this year came out of recession and again went into a stage of stagnation. If we take serious measures that need to be worked out and basically adopted this year, then as early as 2018–2019, our country can resume socio-economic growth.

After four years of depression (2013–2016), our country this year came out of recession and again went into a stage of stagnation. If we take serious measures that need to be worked out and basically adopted this year, then as early as 2018–2019, our country can resume socio-economic growth.