Moscow, Moscow, Russian Federation
This article presents the results of a study of individual theoretical, methodological and empirical aspects of the relationship between innovative macrofinancial policy and long-term economic growth. The research revealed that the scale of innovation largely depends on government subsidies and investment preferences. Improving the quality of innovation requires innovation in the relevant field and contributions to subsequent technological innovations. The quality of innovation depends more on another level of factors and the flow of information. Firms prefer to engage in high-quality innovation activities for the sake of market competition, and the factor of institutional conjuncture has less impact on the quality of innovation. Thus, the article explores the hypothesis that, all other things being equal, deviation from the GDP target weakens the innovative effect of government subsidies. The study was conducted based on the empirical experience of countries with fast-growing economies, in particular, such as China, India, etc. The results also show that asymmetric effects affect the number of innovations rather than their quality. The heterogeneity shows that R&D subsidies are more dependent on the deviation of the GDP target and reduce the effectiveness of corporate innovation compared to non-R&D subsidies. In addition, the asymmetric innovation effect of government subsidies is more noticeable in companies that are subject to less institutional control. Empirical results obtained as a result of econometric calculations and estimates allow us to take a fresh look at the innovative effect of government subsidies through the prism of deviations from the GDP target
long-term economic growth, innovative macrofinancial policy, GDP, R&D, investments, effectiveness
1. Idrisov G. I., Knyaginin V. N., Kudrin A. L., Rozhkova E. S. Novaya tehnologicheskaya revolyuciya: vyzovy i vozmozhnosti dlya Rossii // Voprosy ekonomiki. – 2018. – № 4. – c. 5-25.
2. Matrizaev B.D. Issledovanie metodologicheskih principov i finansovyh mehanizmov makrostrategicheskogo upravleniya dinamikoy tehnologicheskih innovacionnyh sistem. Finansy: teoriya i praktika. – 2022. – № 1 (26). – S. 144-155. – ISSN 2587–5671.
3. Matrizaev B.D. Issledovanie otdel'nyh makroekonomicheskih effektov vliyaniya innovacionnogo predprinimatel'stva na ekonomicheskiy rost v stranah BRIKS. Vestnik Severo-Kavkazskogo federal'nogo universiteta. – 2024. – № 1 (100). – S. 108 - 113.
4. Matrizaev B.D. Issledovanie teoretiko-metodologicheskih osnov i empiricheskih aspektov makroekonomicheskoy ocenki vliyaniya neopredelennosti makroekonomicheskoy politiki na innovacionnoe razvitie v stranah BRIKS. Vestnik Tverskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Ekonomika i upravlenie. – 2024. – № 3 (67). – S. 156 – 166. – ISSN 2219–1453.
5. Naydenova Yu. N., Leont'eva V. V. Vliyanie neopredelennosti ekonomicheskoy politiki na investicii rossiyskih kompaniy // Voprosy ekonomiki. – 2020. – № 2. – c. 141-159.
6. Suharev O. S., Voronchihina E. N. Faktory ekonomicheskogo rosta: empiricheskiy analiz industrializacii i investiciy v tehnologicheskoe obnovlenie // Voprosy ekonomiki. – 2018. – № 6. – c. 29-47.
7. Fedyunina A. A., Gerina Ya. Ya., Aver'yanova Yu. V. Uchenye na rossiyskih promyshlennyh predpriyatiyah: eksport, rasprostranenie znaniy i publikacionnaya aktivnost' // Voprosy ekonomiki. – 2020. – № 2. – c. 125-140.
8. Asheim B. T., Boschma R., & Cooke, P. Constructing regional advantage: Platform policies based on related variety and differentiated knowledge bases. 2011. Reg.Stud. 45(7), 893–904
9. Boschma R. Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Reg. Stud. 39(1),61–74, 2005.
10. Boschma R., & Frenken K. Why is economic geography not an evolutionary science? Towards an evolutionary economic geography. J. Econ. Geogr. 6(3),273–302, 2006.
11. Boschma R., Heimeriks G., & Balland P. A. Scientific knowledge dynamics and relatedness in biotech cities. Res. Policy, 43, 107–114, 2014.
12. Conradie P., & Choenni S. On the barriers for local government releasing open data. Government Information Quarterly, 31, S10–S17, 2014
13. Cooke P. Cleantech and an analysis of the platform nature of life sciences: Further reflections upon platform policies. Eur. Plan. Stud. 16(3), 375–393, 2008.
14. Cooke P., & Morgan K. The associational economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998
15. Czarnitzki D., Lopes-Bento C. Innovation subsidies: does the funding source matter for innovation intensity and performance? Empirical evidence from Germany. Ind. Innov. 2014. 21 (5), 380–409.
16. D’Este P., Rentocchini F., Vega-Jurado J. The role of human capital in lowering the barriers to engaging in innovation: evidence from the Spanish innovation survey. Ind. Innov. 2014. 21 (1), 1–19.
17. De Long J.B., Summers L.H., How strongly do developing economies benefit from equipment investment? J. Monet. Econ. 1993. 32 (3), 395–415.
18. Etzkowitz H., & Leydesdorff L. The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and “Model 2” to a Triple Helix of university-industrygovernment relations. Res. Policy, 29(2), 109–123, 1998.
19. Fagerberg J., Mowery D. C., & Nelson R. R. The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2005.
20. Fereday J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92, 2006.
21. Florida R. The rise of the creative class. New York: Basic Books, 2002.
22. Florida R., Mellander C. The city as innovation machine. Reg. Stud. 51, 86–96, 2017.
23. Fu X. L., Pietrobelli C., & Soete L. The role of foreign technology and indigenous innovation in the emerging economies: Technological change and catching-up. World Dev. 39(7), 1204–1212, 2011.
24. Fung A. Infotopia: Unleashing the democratic power of transparency. Politics & Society, 41(2), 183–212, 2013.
25. Gao Y., Hu Y., Liu X., et al. Can public R&D subsidy facilitate firms’ exploratory innovation? The heterogeneous effects between central and local subsidy programs. Res. Policy 2021. 50 (4), 104221.
26. Gonz´alez X., Paz´o C. Do public subsidies stimulate private R&D spending? Res. Policy 2008. 37 (3), 371–389.
27. Grimes S., & Du D. Foreign and indigenous innovation in China: Some evidence from Shanghai. Eur. Plan. Stud. 21(9), 1357–1373, 2013.
28. Grimes S., & Miozzo M. Big pharma’s internationalization of R&D to China. Eur. Plan. Stud. 23(9), 1873–1894, 2015.
29. Huang Y. Government subsidies and corporate disclosure. J. Account. Econ. 2022. 74 (1), 101480.
30. Wharton Research Data Services https://wrds-www.wharton.upenn.edu/
31. A useful database: China Research Data Service Platform (CNRDS) https://programmersought.com/article/93098090764/
32. Jacobs J. The economy of cities. New York: Vintage, 1969.
33. Janssen M. A., Charalabidis Y., & Zuiderwijk A. Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Information Systems Management, 29(4), 258–268, 2012.
34. Keynes J.M. The general theory of employment, interest and money. Limnol. Oceanogr. 1936. 12 (1–2), 28–36.
35. Liu X., & White S. Comparing innovation systems: A framework and application to China’s transitional context. Rs. Policy, 30(7), 1091–1114, 2001.
36. Ma Y., Sha Y., Wang Z., et al. The effect of the policy mix of green credit and government subsidy on environmental innovation. 2023. Energy Econ. 106512.
37. Martin R., & Sunley P. Deconstructing clusters: Chaotic concept or policy panacea? J. Econ. Geogr. 3(1), 5–35, 2003.
38. Martin R., & Sunley P. Path dependence and regional economic evolution. J.Econ. Geogr. 6(4), 395–437, 2006.
39. Miao J. T., & Hall P. Optical illusion? The growth and development of the Optics Valley of China. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy, 32(5), 863–879, 2014.
40. Orlikowski W. J. Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404–428, 2000.
41. Porter M. On competition. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1998.
42. Samuelson, P.A. The pure theory of public expenditure. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1954. 36 (4), 387–389.
43. Schumpeter J. The theory of economics development. 1934.. J. Polit. Econ. 1 (2), 170–172.
44. Scott A. J., & Storper M. The nature of cities: The scope and limits of urban theory. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 39(1), 1–15, 2015.
45. Shearmur R. Are cities the font of innovation? A critical review of the literature on cities and innovation. Cities, 29(2), S9–S18, 2012.
46. Simmie J. Innovative cities. London: Spon Press, 2001.
47. Worthy B. The impact of open data in the UK: Complex, unpredictable, and political. Public Administration, 93(3), 788–805, 2015
48. Wu W. P. State policies, enterprise dynamism, and innovation system in Shanghai, China. Growth Change, 38(4), 544–566, 2007.
49. Wu F. L. Planning centrality, market instruments: Governing Chinese urban transformation under state entrepreneurialism. Urban Stud. 55(7), 1383–1399, 2018.
50. Zhang F. Building biotech in Shanghai: A perspective of regional innovation system. Eur. Plan. Stud. 23(10), 2062–2078, 2015.
51. Zhang F., Cooke P., & Wu F. L. State-sponsored research and development: A case study of China’s biotechnology. Reg. Stud. 45(5), 575–595, 2012.
52. Zhang F., & Wu F. L. Fostering “indigenous innovation capacities”: The development of biotechnology in Shanghai’s Zhangjiang High-tech Park. Urban Geogr. 33(5), 728–755, 2011.
