Institutional structure of the Russian national innovative system: path dependence - effect

Objective: to analyze the effects of the post-perestroika period of the 1990s on the existing national innovation system ofRussia and to assess it the present stage of development.Methods: the study used traditional methods of analysis, synthesis, description, analogy, systematization, and historical approach, and institutional analysis based on the categorical apparatus of institutional matrices theory.Results: the article is an attempt to understand the problems of the modern national innovation system through the prism of the 1990s, which became the cause of its imperfections. It is emphasized that the systemic problems of the economy in that period made innovative development impossible, which led to the loss of intellectual capital of the country. The abrupt transition from a planned to a market economy without a smooth adjustment, accompanied by the reduction in public spending on research, led to the paralysis of innovation in the real sector of the economy, and reduction of high-tech industries. The negative influence was also produced by privatization, destruction of production chains due to the collapse of the Soviet Union, as well as domestic structural adjustment of the post-Soviet economies. In this regard, the authors investigated the peculiarities of the Russian innovation system from the standpoint of institutional approach, including the problems of staff and investment resources deficit, and the historical dominance of the state in the organization of scientific research. Activity of the state is studied on the basis of the Russian venture capital analysis. The conclusions are formulated about the centralization of the institutional structure of scientific research and development. The possible directions of the national innovation system improvement with a view to achieve more effective results are specified.Scientific novelty: the diagnostics of the problems of modern national innovation system is made in the context of institutional transformation of the Russian economy in the post-perestroika period. Practical significance: the main provisions and conclusions of the research can be used in scientific and teaching activities in terms of the issues concerning the essence and principles of the national innovation system formation, as well as by specialists of state structures for elaborating the strategies of innovative development of the country.

1. Freeman C. Technological infrastructure and international competitiveness // Industrial and Corporate Change. 2004. № 13 (3). C. 541-569. DOI: 10.1093/icc/dth022

2. Amable B., Boyer R. Innovation systems in the era of globalization. 1997.

3. Lundvall B. National systems of innovation: Toward a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London, New York: Anthem Press, 2010. 404 p. DOI: 10.7135/UPO9781843318903

4. Nelson R. National innovation systems: a comparative analysis. Oxford University Press, 1993. 560 p.

5. Whitley R. Societies, firms and markets: the social structuring of business systems // European business systems: Firms and markets in their national contexts / R. Whitley. 1992. С. 5-45.

6. Гапоненко Н. В. Теоретические основы исследования секторальных инновационных систем. М.: ИПРАН РАН, 2013. 212 c.

7. Golichenko O. G. The Basic Factors of National Innovation System Development in Russia // Socio Economics and Technological Innovations Mechanism and Institutions / K. Mandal, N. Asheulova, S. Kirdina. Delhi: Narosa Publishing House. 2014. Рp. 38-52.

8. Дежина И. Г. Новые технологические приоритеты: переоценка возможностей // Экономическое развитие России. 2015. Т. 22, № 6. С. 83-86.

9. Иванова Н. И. Национальные инновационные системы. М.: Наука, 2002, 244 с.

10. Ленчук Е. Б. Национальная технологическая инициатива как стратегический вектор промышленной политики России // Проблемы теории и практики управления. 2016. № 2. С. 8-19.

11. Миндели Л. Э., Васин В. А. Государственно-частное партнерство как важнейший фактор развития национальной инновационной системы // Инновации. 2014. № 1 (183). С. 44-50.

12. Послание Президента Федеральному Собранию от 01.12.2016. URL: http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/53379. (дата обращения: 22.10.2017).

13. Lundvall B. National innovation systems - analytical concept and development tool // Industry and innovation. 2007. № 14 (1). Рp. 95-119. DOI: 10.1080/13662710601130863

14. Williams D. Russia’s innovation system: reflection on the past, present and future // International Journal of Transitions and Innovation Systems. 2011. № 1 (4). Рp. 394-412. DOI: 10.1504/ijtis.2011.044908

15. Freeman С. The National System of Innovation in historical perspective // Cambridge Journal of Economics. 1995. № 19 (1). Pp. 5-24. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.cje.a035309

16. Narula R., Jormanainen I. When a good science base is not enough to create competitive industries: Lock-in and inertia in Russian systems of innovation. MERIT-UNU Working Papers, 2008.

17. Corden W. M., Neary J. P. Booming sector and de-industrialisation in a small open economy // The economic journal. 1982. № 92 (368). Pp. 825-848. DOI: 10.2307/2232670

18. Corden W. M. Booming sector and Dutch disease economics: survey and consolidation // Oxford Economic Papers. 1984. № 36 (3). Рp. 359-380. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.oep.a041643

19. Cooper J. Of BRICs and brains: Comparing Russia with China, India, and other populous emerging economies // Eurasian Geography and Economics. 2006. № 47 (3). Рp. 255-284. DOI: 10.2747/1538-7216.47.3.255

20. Камко Е. В. Концепция инновационного прорыва с учетом институциональной макроструктуры // Журнал экономической теории. 2014. № 3. C. 195-199.

21. McCarthy D. J., Puffer S. M., Graham L. R., Satinsky D. M. Emerging Innovation in Emerging Economies: Can Institutional Reforms Help Russia Break Through Its Historical Barriers? // Thunderbird International Business Review. 2014. № 56 (3). Рp. 243-260. DOI: 10.1002/tie.21619

22. Kheimets N. G., Epstein A. D. English as a central component of success in the professional and social integration of scientists from the former Soviet Union in Israel // Language in Society. 2001. № 30 (02). С. 187-215. DOI: 10.1017/s0047404501002020

23. Trajtenberg M. R&D Policy in Israel: An Overview and Reassessment. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper, 2000. DOI: 10.3386/w7930

24. Rivlin P. The State and the Development of High Technology Sectors in Israel // Economic Planning and Industrial Policy in the Globalizing Economy. USA: Springer, 2015. Рp. 257-267. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-06474-1_12

25. Социальный капитал как фактор роста конкурентоспособности экономических систем / Р. А. Григорьев, А. Р. Климанова, М. В. Крамин, Т. В. Крамин // Вектор науки Тольяттинского государственного университета. Серия: Экономика и управление. 2015. № 4. С. 29-34.

26. Вклад интеллектуального и социального капиталов в экономический рост регионов Российской Федерации / Т. В. Крамин, Р. А. Григорьев, А. В. Тимирясова, Л. В. Воронцова //Актуальные проблемы экономики и права. 2016. № 4. С. 66-74.

27. Камко Е. В. Индустриальные парки России: институциональный анализ // Идеи и идеалы. 2014. Т. 2, № 2 (20). C. 61-69.

28. Кирдина С. Г. Институциональная организация воспроизводственных процессов в Х- и Y-экономиках // Journal of Institutional Studies. 2016. Т. 8, № 4. С. 38-57.

29. Кирдина С. Г. Х- и Y-экономики: институциональный анализ. М.: Наука, 2004, 256 c.

30. Кирдина С. Г. Институциональные матрицы и развитие России. Введение в Х-Y-теорию. М.; СПб.: Нестор-История, 2014, 468 с.

31. Камко Е. В. Взаимодействие науки, бизнеса и государства в развитии инновационных проектов: сравнительный анализ на примере России, Китая и США // Актуальные проблемы экономики и права. 2017. Т. 11, № 3 (43). С. 5-15.

32. Roffey R. Russian Science and Technology is Still Having Problems - Implications for Defense Research // The Journal of Slavic Military Studies. 2013. № 26(2). Рp. 162-188. DOI: 10.1080/13518046.2013.779849