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.