DOI: 10.33917/mic-6.119.2024.94-103

The article examines the global trend of «reloading» national industrial strategies in the context of recent geopolitical and geoeconomic challenges. We describe the countries’ transition from priorities of economic efficiency to dominant priorities of economic security and their course towards achieving technological sovereignty (self-sufficiency) as its central component. We analyze this course in the leading world economies (EU, USA, China), as well as the risks for its successful implementation. Special attention is paid to a similar Russian course – the only alternative under the sanctions pressure. We find that in all types of economies, including Russia, achieving technological sovereignty may be a more difficult task than governments expect, and that the accumulation of inefficiencies from fragmentation of the global economy into blocs will eventually force countries to return to greater economic openness.

References:

1. Smorodinskaya N.V. Globalized economy: From hierarchies to a network order. Moscow: Institute of Economics RAS, 2015. 344 p.

2. Aiginger K., Ketels C. Industrial policy reloaded. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade. 2024;24:7.

3. Evenett S., Jakubik A., Martín F., Ruta M. The return of industrial policy in data. The World Economy. 2024;47 (7):2762–2788.

4. Smorodinskaya N.V., Katukov D.D. Moving towards technological sovereignty: a new global trend and the Russian specifics. Baltic Region. 2024;16 (3):108–135.

5. Morgan T.C., Syropoulos C., Yotov Y.V. Economic sanctions: Evolution, consequences, and challenges. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 2023;37 (1):3–29.

6. Cha V.D. Collective resilience: Deterring China’s weaponization of economic interdependence. International Security. 2023;48 (1):91–124.

7. Tung R.L., Zander I., Fang T. The Tech Cold War, the multipolarization of the world economy, and IB research. International Business Review. 2023;32 (6):102195.

8. Aiyar S., Ilyina A., Chen J., Kangur A., Trevino J., Ebeke C., Gudmundsson T., Soderberg G., Schulze T., 
Kunaratskul T., Ruta M., Garcia-Saltos R., Rodriguez S. Geoeconomic fragmentation and the future of multilateralism. IMF Staff Discussion Notes, 2023. 42 p.

9. Stępka M. Identifying security logics in the EU policy discourse. Cham: Springer, 2022.

10.Drezner D.W. Global economic sanctions. Annual Review of Political Science. 2024;27 (1):9–24.

11.  Afontsev S.A. Theoretical dimensions of economic sovereignty. Journal of the New Economic Association. 2024; (3):218–224.

12. Goodman M.P. Policymaking is all about trade-offs. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies. URL: https://www.cfr.org/article/policymaking-all-about-trade-offs

13. Edler J., Blind K., Kroll H., Schubert T. Technology sovereignty as an emerging frame for innovation policy: Defining rationales, ends and means. Research Policy. 2023;52 (6):104765.

14. Mazzucato M. Mission economy: A moonshot guide to changing capitalism. London: Allen Lane, 2021.

DOI: 10.33917/es-4.196.2024.74-81

The article examines the issues of stimulating the Russian economy through mechanism for implementing megaprojects, assesses the implementation risks and provides recommendations for providing economic security of the Russian Federation in the context of the current GDP structure.

References:

1. Rasporyazhenie Pravitel’stva RF ot 20 maya 2023 g. N 1315-r “Ob utverzhdenii Kontseptsii tekhnologicheskogo razvitiya na period do 2030 goda” [Order of the Government of the Russian Federation of May 20, 2023 No. 1315-r “On Approval of the Concept of Technological Development for the Period up to 2030”]. Kodeks, available at: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/1301657597#6580IP

2. Plenarnoe zasedanie Evraziyskogo ekonomicheskogo foruma [Plenary Session of the Eurasian Economic Forum]. Ofitsial’noe internet-predstavitel’stvo prezidenta Rossii, 2023, 24 maya, available at: http://www.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/71198

3. Ukaz Prezidenta RF ot 28 fevralya 2024 g. N 145 “O Strategii nauchno-tekhnologicheskogo razvitiya Rossiyskoy Federatsii” [Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of February 28, 2024 No. 145 “On the Strategy for Scientific and Technological Development of the Russian Federation”]. Ofitsial’nyy internet-portal pravovoy informatsii, available at: http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/document/0001202402280003?index=2

4. Morunov V.V. Teoreticheskie podkhody k opredeleniyu sushchnosti ekonomicheskoy bezopasnosti [Theoretical Approaches to Defining the Essence of Economic Security]. VEPS. 2011. № 4. URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/teoreticheskie-podhody-k-opredeleniyu-suschnosti-ekonomicheskoy-bezopasnosti

5. Radygin A.D., Entov R.M., Abramov A.E., Chernova M.I., Mal’ginov G.N. Privatizatsiya 30 let spustya: masshtaby i effektivnost’ gosudarstvennogo sektora [Privatization 30 Years Later: The Scale and Efficiency of the Public Sector]. Moscow, ID “Delo” RANKhiGS. 2019. URL: https://ipei.ranepa.ru/ru/kgu

6. Likholetov V.V. Strategicheskie aspekty ekonomicheskoy bezopasnosti [Strategic Aspects of Economic Security]. Obrazovatel’naya platforma “Yurayt”, 2023, 201, available at: https://urait.ru/bcode/519502

7. Vlasti obsudili vvod garantirovannogo dokhoda dlya investorov v megaproekty. Gosudarstvo mozhet obespechit’ im khedzhirovanie riskov [Authorities Discussed the Introduction of a Guaranteed Income for Investors in Megaprojects. The State can Provide them with Risk Hedging]. RBK, 2023, 26 oktyabrya, available at: https://www.rbc.ru/economics/26/10/2023/653900cc9a7947b40010637f?from=copy

8. Bezbozhnova E.A. Ekonomicheskaya bezopasnost’ gosudarstva v kontekste tekhnologicheskogo razvitiya [Economic Security of the State in the Context of Technological Development]. Ekonomika i sovremennyy menedzhment: teoriya, metodologiya, praktika. Penza, Nauka i Prosveshchenie, 2022, pp. 139–141.

9. Karavaeva I.V. Natsional’naya ekonomicheskaya bezopasnost’ v teoreticheskikh issledovaniyakh Instituta ekonomiki RAN [National Economic Security in Theoretical Research of the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences]. Vestnik Instituta ekonomiki Rossiyskoy akademii nauk, 2020, no 2, available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/natsionalnaya-ekonomicheskaya-bezopasnost-v-teoreticheskih-issledovaniyah-instituta-ekonomiki-ran

DOI: 10.33917/es-1.193.2024.62-69

The paper deals with the problems of measuring the technological sovereignty of a country, region, the provision of which is set as a priority strategic task for the Russian economy. The purpose of the study is to identify the features of measuring technological sovereignty based on the available statistics on the technological development of the Russian economy and, on this basis, to propose an assessment method that involves expanding accounting capabilities. The theory of measurement and technological development is used as a methodology. Using this methodology, it is shown that the index and rating method for assessing the aggregated “technological sovereignty” does not allow obtaining its necessary measurement, especially since the indicator itself in an aggregated form is not of great value, since there is a dependence on technologies for specific types of activities and industries that localize technological specifics of development. A direct method for measuring technological sovereignty is proposed, for the implementation of which there is no statistics in practice, which actualizes changes in the system of statistical accounting of technological development. However, already at the theoretical level of analysis, it is possible to obtain that, from the point of view of a direct measurement method, in order for technological sovereignty to grow, an outstripping growth rate of domestic domestic technologies is necessary over the growth rate of their total number, taking into account imports. In addition, if we introduce the concept of obsolete and new technologies, then in order to increase technological sovereignty, measured by the direct method as the ratio of the number of imported technologies to the number of domestic technologies of this type of activity, the growth rate of new technologies within the country must outstrip the difference between the weighted growth rates of the number of imported and obsolete domestic technologies. This condition is derived analytically precisely, confirming the importance of measuring and accounting for various technologies for specific activities.

References:

1. Glaz’ev S.Yu. Nanotekhnologii kak klyuchevoy faktor novogo tekhnologicheskogo uklada v ekonomike [Nanotechnology as a Key Factor in the New Technological Order in the Economy]. Moscow, Trovant, 2009, 304 p.

2. Sukharev O.S. Ekonomika promyshlennosti, tekhnologiy i intellektual’nykh firm [Economics of Industry, Technology and Intellectual Firms]. Moscow, Lenand, 2022, 304 p.

3. Sukharev O.S. Tekhnologicheskiy suverenitet: resheniya na makroekonomicheskom i otraslevom urovne [Technological Sovereignty: Solutions at the Macroeconomic and Industry Level]. Mikroekonomika, 2023, no 2, pp. 19–33.

4. Chichkanov V.P., Sukharev O.S. Reytingi v upravlenii ekonomikoy: informativnost’ i tselesoobraznost’ [Ratings in Economic Management: Informativeness and Expediency]. Nauchnyy vestnik OPK Rossii, 2021, no 3, pp. 72–82.

DOI: 10.33917/mic-2.109.2023.19-33

The problem of ensuring technological sovereignty in the Russian economy is considered. The purpose of the study is to identify the features of technological development and assess technological sovereignty at the sectoral and macroeconomic levels of management. The methodology is the theory of technological change, comparative and empirical, structural analysis. The general result of applying these approaches is proposals at the macroeconomic level and for sectoral policy that contribute to increasing the technological independence of the state. Ensuring technological sovereignty comes down not only to the substitution of technology imports, but, more importantly, to the resuscitation of the domestic technological base. Particular emphasis should be placed on overcoming the existing and chronic problems of the technological development of the Russian economy. These include: the pseudo effect of technological dualism, the low sensitivity of manufacturability to investment in new technologies, the low share of the knowledge economy, and the inefficient structure of technological modes. Increasing the rate of accumulation of fixed capital and bringing it to the rate of savings is a false goal, since the structure of the distribution of investments, and not their share, that is, the volume, is important for long-term growth. Measures for financial independence proposed at the macro level will determine the solution of the problem of technological sovereignty, but the proposed recipes are very streamlined, not specific and do not solve the problem of sovereign financial development, since the placement of financial resources in external instruments, the application of the previous targeting policy and the budget rule remain, as well as the monetary policy of curbing growth. These conditions will hinder the solution of the problem of ensuring technological sovereignty in Russia.

References:

1. Glazyev S.Yu. Nanotechnologies as a key factor in the new technological order in the economy / Ed. Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences S.Yu. Glazyev and Professor V.V. Kharitonov. M.: Trovant, 2009. 304 p.

2. Lvov D.S., Glaziev S.Yu. Theoretical and applied aspects of STP management. Economics and Mathematical Methods. 1986;5:793–804. (In Russ.).

3. Mensch G. Technological stalemate: innovations overcome depression. M.: Economics, 2001. 211 p.

4. Perez K. Technological revolutions and financial capital. Dynamics of bubbles and periods of prosperity. M.: Delo, 2011. 232 p.

5. Sukharev O.S. Economics of technological development. M.: Finance and statistics, 2008. 480 p.

6. Sukharev O.S. Economics of industry, technology and intellectual firms. M.: Lenand, 2022. 304 p.

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

8. Breschi S., Malerba F., Orsenigo L. Technological Regimes and Schumpeterian Patterns of Innovation. The Economic Journal. 2000;110 (463):388–410.