Moscow, Moscow, Russian Federation
The global economic system has been undergoing continuous changes since the global financial and economic year 2008. Although the signs of economic recovery are already noticeable, the pace of recovery directly depends on the introduction of innovative macroeconomic mechanisms, especially in the context of weak consumer activity. The modern world is actively shaping a new architecture of economic relations, including the revision of the monetary system and the creation of more effective regulatory instruments. The previous methods of economic management used before the 2008 crisis are giving way to fundamentally new macroinstitutional approaches aimed at ensuring sustainable development in the long term. In modern conditions, state-owned corporations are becoming key drivers of innovative development, which is a response to the imperfections of market mechanisms. Targeted government intervention through targeted economic instruments helps minimize the negative consequences of market failures. The research focuses on the analysis of methodological approaches to the assessment of technological independence in relation to the industrial policy of the state. Particular attention is paid to the study of macroinstitutional mechanisms through which state-owned companies contribute to achieving technological excellence and strategic leadership. At the same time, the analysis covers both developed economies and countries with emerging markets, which makes it possible to identify universal patterns and specific features of these processes. The research is devoted to the analysis of the instruments of state industrial policy and their role in the technological breakthrough. Particular attention is paid to identifying critical technologies and mechanisms through which government-owned companies can stimulate the emergence of innovation clusters. The work is aimed at identifying effective methodological approaches to the formation of breakthrough technological solutions with the active assistance of the public sector of the economy.
macro-institutional policy, innovative potential, state-owned companies, economic growth, innovative development, technological solutions
1. Borisov V.N. i dr. Modernizaciya promyshlennosti i razvitie vysokotehnologichnyh proizvodstv v kontekste «zelenogo rosta». Pod redakciey akademika Porfir'eva B.N. – M.: Nauchnyy konsul'tant, 2017. – 434 s.
2. Borisov V.N. i dr. Prognozirovanie innovacionnogo mashinostroeniya. M.: MAKS Press, 2015. –180s. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/WCAOVZ
3. Borisov V.N. i dr. Innovacionno-tehnologicheskoe razvitie ekonomiki Rossii: problemy, faktory, strategii, prognozy. - M.: MAKS PRESS, 2005. - 591 s. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/QQXHST
4. Gul'bina N. I. K voprosu o klassifikacii osnovnyh techeniy institucional'noy teorii // Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Ekonomika. № 4, 2009. – c. 77-86. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/LLWUUF
5. 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. 108-117. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37493/2307-907X.2024.1.11; EDN: https://elibrary.ru/QZASRG
6. Matrizaev B.D. BRIKSELEVENomika: issledovanie principov formirovaniya neoglobal'nogo ravnovesiya i ekonomicheskogo rosta. Teoreticheskaya ekonomika. - 2022 - №10. - s.115-131. DOI: https://doi.org/10.52957/22213260_2022_10_115; EDN: https://elibrary.ru/OWSMXH
7. Melihov V. Yu., Osadchaya T. G. Osnovnye etapy razvitiya institucional'noy teorii // Vestnik Tambovskogo universiteta. Seriya: Gumanitarnye nauki. № 12, 2011. - c. 427-432. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/OOFVHN
8. Napol'skih D. L. Strukturnoe modelirovanie institucional'noy sredy innovacionnogo klastera. // MIR (Modernizaciya. Innovacii. Razvitie). № 12, 2012. - c. 40-45. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/RCEASX
9. Bahreini M. Does economic policy uncertainty impact firms’ capital structure policy? Evidence from Western European economies. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30 (13), pp. 37157–37173.
10. Bargh J. A., Huang J. Y. The evolutionary unconscious: From ‘selfish genes’ to ‘selfish goals. In: J. P. Forgas, E. Harmon-Jones (eds.). Sydney symposium of social psychology. Motivation and its regulation: The control within. New York: Psychology Press, 2014, rp. 35-54.
11. Becker G. S. A theory of social interactions. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 82, No. 6, 1974, pp. 1063-1093. https://doi.org/10.1086/260265
12. Borozan B. The asymmetric effect of economic policy uncertainty on energy consumption. Energy Effic. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-022-10037-w. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/UOWEDP
13. Cardinale R., Belotti E. The rise of the shareholding state in Italy: A policyoriented strategist or simply a shareholder? Evidence from the energy and banking sectors’ privatizations. Struct. Chang. Econ. Dyn. 62, 2022, 52–60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2022.03.014; EDN: https://elibrary.ru/ISWNAM
14. Cl`o S., Marvasi E., Ricchiuti G. State-owned Enterprises in the global market: Varieties of government control and internationalization strategies. Struct. Chang. Econ. Dyn. 64, 2023, 25–40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2022.11.003; EDN: https://elibrary.ru/VCRWTB
15. Daiser P., Ysa T., Schmitt D. Corporate governance of state-owned enterprises: a systematic analysis of empirical literature. International Journal of Public Sector Management 30 (5), 2017, 447–466.
16. Deng X. Economic policy uncertainty and China’s growth-at-risk. Econ. Anal. Policy, 2021, 70 (June), 452–467.
17. Dugger W. M. Methodological differences between institutional and neoclassical economics. Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 13, No. 4, 1979, pp. 899-909. https://doi.org/10.1080/00213624.1979.11503711
18. Florio M. Contemporary public enterprises: innovation, accountability, governance. Journal of Economic Policy Reform 17 (3), 2014, 201–208.
19. Gao Y., Cheng G., Ma Y. An analysis of the comprehensive efficiency and its determinants of China’s National Champions: Competition Neutrality vs. Ownership Neutrality. Struct. Chang. Econ. Dyn. 59, 2021, 320–329. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2021.09.001; EDN: https://elibrary.ru/QLLQCU
20. Gasperin S. Lessons from the past for 21st century systems of state-owned enterprises: The case of Italy’s IRI in the 1930s. Struct. Chang. Econ. Dyn. 62, 2022, 599–612. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2022.03.010; EDN: https://elibrary.ru/WCGPVO
21. Grossi G., Papenfuß U., Tremblay M.S. Corporate governance and accountability of state-owned enterprises: Relevance for science and society and interdisciplinary research perspectives. International Journal of Public Sector Management 28 (4/5), 2015, 274–285.
22. Hodgson G. Institutional economics: From Menger and Veblen to Coase and North. In: J. B. Davis, A. Marciano, J. Runde (eds.). The Elgar companion to economics and philosophy, 2004, pp. 84-101. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
23. Hodgson G. M. Institutional economics into the twenty-first century. Studi e Note di Economia, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2009, pp. 3-26.
24. International Monetary Fund. A Comprehensive Macroeconomic Uncertainty Measure for the Euro Area and its Implications to COVID-19. https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/Publications/WP/2023/Datasets/wp23229.ashx
25. Jacobsson S., Lauber V. The politics and policy of energy system transformation – explaining the German diffusion of renewable energy technology. Energy Policy 34, 2006, pp.256–276.
26. Jacobsson T., Jacobsson S. Conceptual confusion - an analysis of the meaning of concepts in technological innovation systems and sociological functionalism. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manage., 2014, pp.1–13.
27. Johnson A., Jacobsson S. Inducement and blocking mechanisms in the development of a new industry: the case of renewable energy technology in Sweden. In: Coombs, R., Green, K., Walsh, V., Richards, A. (Eds.), Technology and the Market: Demand, Users and Innovation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/Northhampton, 2001, pp.18-25
28. Kim K., Sumner A. Bringing state-owned entities back into the industrial policy debate: The case of Indonesia. Struct. Chang. Econ. Dyn. 59, 2021, 496–509. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2021.10.002; EDN: https://elibrary.ru/MJOLII
29. Liu X., Shen J.H., Deng K. Endowment Structure, property rights and reforms of large state-owned enterprises (SOEs) in China: Past, present and future. Struct. Chang. Econ. Dyn. 62, 2022, 675–692. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2022.05.006; EDN: https://elibrary.ru/CXMHWP
30. Lo D., Gao L., Lin Y. State ownership and innovations: Lessons from the mixedownership reforms of China’s listed companies. Struct. Chang. Econ. Dyn. 60, 2022, 302–314. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2021.12.002; EDN: https://elibrary.ru/GXRACW
31. Mai T.V., Casady C.B. Delivering transport infrastructure using state-owned enterprises (SOEs): A business history of Vietnam Expressway Corporation between 2004 and 2016. Struct. Chang. Econ. Dyn. 65, 2023, 339–350. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2023.03.006; EDN: https://elibrary.ru/LGBCCD
32. Maskell P., Bathelt H., Malmberg A. Building global knowledge pipelines: the role of temporary clusters. Eur. Plann. Stud. 14, 2006, pp.997–1013.
33. Menard C., Shirley M. M. The future of new institutional economics: From early intuitions to a new paradigm? Journal of Institutional Economics, Vol. 10, No. 4, 2014, pp. 541-565.
34. Meng Die Z., Shi Yu L., Law S. h, Ong t S. Economic policy uncertainty, government subsidy and R&D investment: evidence from the chinese pharmaceutical manufacturing industry. Cent. Eur. Manag. J. 2023. 31 (2), 68–83.
35. Musiolik J., Markard J., Hekkert M. Networks and network resources in technological innovation systems: towards a conceptual framework for system building. Technol. Forecasting Social Change 79, 2012, pp.1032–1048.
36. Negro S.O., Hekkert M.P. Explaining the success of emerging technologies by innovation system functioning: the case of biomass digestion in Germany. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manage. 20, 2008, pp.465–482.
37. Negro S.O., Hekkert M.P., Smits R.E. Explaining the failure of the Dutch innovation system for biomass digestion-A functional analysis. Energy Policy 35, 2007, 925–938.
38. Paiva-Silva J. Understanding the Singaporean approach to state ownership: ‘commercially viable strategic alignment’ in historical perspective. Struct. Chang. Econ. Dyn. 61, 2022, 43–58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2021.10.014; EDN: https://elibrary.ru/EMYSGS
39. Papenfuß U. Corporate governance of state-owned enterprises: Conceptualization, challenges and perspectives for the public corporate governance field. In: Beriner L., Florio M., Bance P. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of state-owned enterprises. Routledge, Abingdon, 2020, pp. 433–444.
40. Trinh V.Q. U.K. economic policy uncertainty and innovation activities: A firm-level analysis. 2023. J. Econ. Bus. 123 (January) https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconbus.2022.106093. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/GSUTBD
41. Ullah I. Uncertainty and R&D investment: does product market competition matter? Res. Int. Bus. Financ. 2020. 52 (April) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2019.101167.
42. Wang Y., You Q., Qiao Y. Political genes drive innovation: Political endorsements and low-quality innovation. Struct. Chang. Econ. Dyn. 60, 2022, 407–417. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2021.12.009; EDN: https://elibrary.ru/MMQUXF
43. Yang Z. Economic policy uncertainty and green innovation based on the viewpoint of resource endowment. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2023. 35 (7), 785–798.
