rusjelRussian Journal of Economics and LawRussian Journal of Economics and Law2782-2923"TCE "Taglimat"" Ltd.10.21202/2782-2923.2024.3.699-728rusjel-2576Research ArticleREGIONAL AND BRANCH ECONOMICSРЕГИОНАЛЬНАЯ И ОТРАСЛЕВАЯ ЭКОНОМИКАFrom coordination to implementation: transformation of the industrial policy of the Union State of Russia and BelarusОт согласования к реализации: трансформация промышленной политики Союзного государства России и Беларусиhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-8670-0304ПотапцеваЕ. В.PotaptsevaЕ. V.
Екатерина Викторовна Потапцева, кандидат экономических наук, доцент, старший научный сотрудник
Центр структурной политики
Екатеринбург
Ekaterina V. Potaptseva, Cand. Sci. (Economics), Associate Professor, Senior Researcher
Center for Structural Policy
Yekaterinburg
potaptseva.ev@uiec.ruhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-0195-8694БрянцеваО. С.BryantsevaO. S.
Ольга Сергеевна Брянцева, кандидат экономических наук, научный сотрудник
Центр структурной политики
Екатеринбург
Olga S. Bryantseva, Cand. Sci. (Economics), Researcher
Center for Structural Policy
Yekaterinburg
bryansteva.os@uiec.ruhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-7453-3884ПресняковаЕ. В.PresniakovaE. V.
Елена Владимировна Преснякова, кандидат экономических наук, доцент, руководитель центра
центр инновационной и инвестиционной политики
Минск
Elena V. Presniakova, Cand. Sci. (Economics), Associate Рrofessor, Head of the Center
Center for Innovation and Investment Policy
Minsk
investment@economics.basnet.byИнститут экономики Уральского отделения Российской академии наукРоссияInstitute of Economics, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of SciencesRussian FederationИнститут экономики Национальной академии наук БеларусиБеларусьInstitute of Economics, National Academy of Sciences of BelarusBelarus202418092024183699728Copyright © Potaptseva Е.V., Bryantseva O.S., Presniakova E.V., 20242024Потапцева Е.В., Брянцева О.С., Преснякова Е.В.Potaptseva Е.V., Bryantseva O.S., Presniakova E.V.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.rusjel.ru/jour/article/view/2576
Objective: to study the evolution of the industrial policy of the Union State of Russia and Belarus from 1999 to 2024. Methods: analysis of strategic documents, statistical analysis of macroeconomic indicators and study of regional aspects of economic integration. We studied the statistics of joint ventures with Belarusian capital in Russia and with Russian capital in Belarus, which indicates the changing economic conditions in the Union State. Results: the industrial policy of the Union State is systematically developing and is aimed at deepening the economic integration of the two countries. It relies on the implementation of strategic agreements, planning and financing of joint scientific and technical programs. The study shows that despite the existence of strategic agreements, such as the 1999 Agreement on a Common Structural Industrial Policy and the 2023 Agreement on a Common Industrial Policy, a significantpart of the planned activities and projects has remained only partially implemented. The article elaborates on the key changes in the content of industrial policy, including increased emphasis on integration projects, import substitution and development of new types of competitive products. The study of the statistics of joint ventures with Belarusian capital in Russia and with Russian capital in Belarus points to changing economic conditions in the Union State. Since 2017, the number of joint ventures has been decreasing, which can be a consequence of both the reduction of barriers in international trade and economy and the decreased interest of enterprises in bilateral relations. The industrial policy of the Union State is currently aimed at overcoming dependence on the supply of foreign equipment and components, creating a common economic and scientific-technical space, financing and developing scientific-industrial cooperation based on union programs and projects. Scientific novelty: it consists in analyzing the evolution of the common industrial policy of the Union State for more than two decades. For the first time such a detailed analysis covered the whole period from the signing of the initial agreement in 1999 to the last intergovernmental agreement in 2023. This allows getting a holistic view of the development of approachesand transformation of the Union State industrial policy. Practical significance: for the first time, the study provides an insight into the dynamics of economic integration of the Russian and Belarus regions within the Union State through the statistics of joint Russian-Belarusian enterprises in the regions. This can be useful for researchers, business community and authorities to understand the processes of industrial policy impact on the real sector of the economy.
Цель
Цель: исследование эволюции промышленной политики Союзного государства России и Беларуси за период с 1999 по 2024 гг.
Методы
Методы: анализ стратегических документов, статистический анализ макроэкономических показателей и исследование региональных аспектов экономической интеграции. Изучение статистики совместных предприятий с белорусским капиталом в России и с российским капиталом в Беларуси, которая указывает на изменение экономических условий в Союзном государстве.
Результаты
Результаты: промышленная политика Союзного государства планомерно развивается и нацелена на углублениеэкономической интеграции двух стран. Она опирается на выполнение стратегических соглашений, планирование и финансирование совместных научно-технических программ. Исследование показало, что, несмотря на наличие стратегических соглашений, таких как Соглашение о единой структурной промышленной политике 1999 г. и Соглашение о единой промышленной политике 2023 г., значительная часть запланированных мероприятий и проектов осталась ограниченно выполненной. В статье подробно рассматриваются ключевые измененияв содержании промышленной политики, включая усиление акцента на интеграционные проекты, импортозамещение и развитие новых видов конкурентоспособной продукции. Исследование статистики совместных предприятий с белорусским капиталом в России и с российским капиталом в Беларуси указывает на изменение экономических условий в Союзном государстве. Начиная с 2017 г. количество совместных предприятий уменьшается, это может быть как следствием снижения международных торгово-экономических барьеров, так и заинтересованности предприятий в двухсторонних взаимосвязях. Промышленная политика Союзного государства в настоящее время направлена на преодоление зависимости от поставок зарубежного оборудования и комплектующих, создание единого экономического и научно-технического пространства, финансирование и развитие научно-промышленного сотрудничества на основе союзных программ и проектов.
Научная новизна
Научная новизна: заключается в анализе эволюции единой промышленной политики Союзного государства на протяжении более двух десятилетий. Впервые проводится столь детальный анализ, охватывающий весь период с момента подписания первоначального соглашения в 1999 г. до последнего межправительственного соглашения в 2023 г., что позволяет получить целостное представление о развитии подходов и трансформации промышленной политики Союзного государства.
Практическая значимость: исследование впервые дает представление о динамике экономической интеграции регионов России и Беларуси в Союзном государстве через статистику совместных российско-белорусских предприятий в регионах, что может быть полезно исследователям, бизнес-сообществу и органам власти для понимания процессов влияния промышленной политики на реальный сектор экономики.
региональная и отраслевая экономикаединая промышленная политикарегиональная промышленная политикаСоюзное государство России и Беларусиэкономическая интеграцияединое экономическое пространствостратегическое партнерствотехнологическое развитиевзаимодействие между предприятиями союзаregional and sectoral economycommon industrial policyregional industrial policyUnion State of Russia and Belaruseconomic integrationcommon economic spacestrategic partnershiptechnological developmentinteraction between the enterprises of the UnionИсследование выполнено в соответствии с государственным заданием для ФГБУН Институт экономики УрО РАН тема № 0327-2024-0010 на 2024–2026 гг.The research was carried out in accordance with the state assignment for the Institute of Economics (Ural branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences), theme No. 0327-2024-0010 for 2024-2026Introduction
The year 2024 will mark the 25th anniversary of the strategic partnership between Russia and Belarus within the Union State. This is an occasion to summarize the results of economic and industrial integration of the two states. For Russia, a great role nowadays is played by the strategy of building deep partnerships with friendly countries in the context of common technological development (Polterovich, 2023). The Republic of Belarus is a key ally in this respect. This is especially important in the industrial sector, as joint efforts of the Union State in the field of industrial and scientific-technological development contribute to strengthening technological sovereignty and can lead to synergistic effects in the national economies of the two countries.
The study objective is to analyze the evolution of the common industrial policy of the Union State of Russia and Belarus from 1999 to 2024. The research tasks include: a) to analyze the main strategic documents devoted to industrial development in the Union State over the past twenty-five years; b) to study the main trends in macroeconomic indicators of scientific-technological development; c) to study the regional aspects of integration by analyzing the statistics of joint Russian-Belarusian enterprises; d) to define the current trends in the industrial policy of the Union State of Russia and Belarus.
When choosing research methods, we rely on the complementary analysis of macroeconomic and regional aspects of industrial policy in the field of technological sovereignty of the Union State. At the first stage of the research, we analyzed domestic and foreign scientific literature devoted to the development of industrial policy of states and the choice of tools for its implementation in different countries.
At the second stage we analyzed the main documents reflecting the aspiration of the Union State countries to economic integration and the main tools of industrial policy of Russia and Belarus in the context of achieving technological sovereignty. We compared the tools of industrial policy specified in the Agreement on a Common Structural Industrial Policy of 1999 and the Agreement on a Common Industrial Policy of 2023. Then we analyzed the tools aimed at creating and implementing the integration policy between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus in the industrial sphere, which are reflected in the Main Directions for the Implementation of the Provisions of the Treaty on the Establishment of the Union State for 2021–2023 and for 2024–2026.
Since the implementation of Union programs should contribute to the growth of interaction between enterprises of the Union (this is the hypothesis of our study), understanding the dynamics of the presence of joint ventures in the Russian market becomes an important factor in deepening economic integration between Russia and Belarus. In this regard, at the third stage we investigated regional aspects of economic development in the Union State by analyzing the statistics of joint Russian-Belarusian enterprises registered in Belarus and in the regions of Russia, as well as their sectoral affiliation. We also investigated the regional trends of economic interaction between the Union State countries.
The study object is economic integration between the countries of the Union State. The subject matter of the study is, firstly, the industrial policy of the Union State countries, reflected in strategic documents, and secondly, the dynamics of joint ventures with Russian capital in Belarus and joint ventures with Belarusian capital in the Russian regions. The sample of statistical indicators is based on the data of the Federal State Statistics Service of the Russian Federation and its territorial branches, as well as on the open data of the National Statistical Committee of the Republic of Belarus.
Research resultsAvailable research on the topic
Industrial policy and the choice of tools for its implementation is a relevant trend of modern global economic development (Fenna, 2016; Weiss, 2017). At the same time, as was shown by Rodrik (2004. P. 3), an effective industrial policy needs to build interaction between the public and the private sectors to solve problems and achieve industrial development goals in the most promising areas.
The evolution of industrial policy understanding and application was considered by Chang (2020), who showed the need to form new approaches to industrial policy in relation to three key directions of production systems transformation: globalization of value chains, financialization of the global economy, and the large-scale role of technological giants. Juhasz et al. (2022) analyzes the practice of different industrial policy measures and its segmentation into large-scale R&D support, sectoral and territorial industrial policy. A new industrial policy, more relevant at the current stage of geopolitical changes, is also proposed, as well as the limitations of integration processes of globalization, based on more flexible tools, such as providing a range of business services, educational and infrastructural support, start-up capital and targeted loans.
The analytical study by Cherif et al. (2022) investigates industrial policy tools in five key areas: commodity market, financial market, labor and real estate market policies, and new technologies. Dolfsma and Mamica (2020) suggest using a flexible adaptive industrial policy based on an institutional approach; according to them, an effective industrial policy should be tailored to the regional specificity and circumstances of its presence. Criscuolo and colleagues propose a taxonomy of industrial policy tools depending on the approach, focusing on the demand or supply, as well as on the overall industrial development framework, which includes ensuring well-functioning financial markets, labor mobility, tax system, business support, intellectual property protection, and technical standardization (Criscuolo et al., 2022. P. 19). Diegues et al. (2023) present a typology of industrial policies based on the conditions of their implementation.
Aiginger (2007) argues that industrial policy is becoming, on the one hand, increasingly sector- and technology-specific and, on the other hand, increasingly comprehensive and systemic, integrating education, innovation, regional policy, competition policy, labor relations and environmental protection, while developing synergy between them. One of the key aspects of modern industrial policy is its integration with other economy sectors and the use of a multi-level approach. Juhasz and Steinwender (2024) note that states have applied a huge variety of different policies aimed primarily, but not exclusively, at promoting industrialization and export development. The paper provides examples of how countries have used industrial policies aimed at stimulating production, technology, and infrastructure provision, and how these efforts may have played a role in the successes or failures of industrialization.
Naudé (2010) showed that industrial policy offers new opportunities for developing countries to accelerate industrialization. The main challenges to industrial policy in such countries are economic globalization and the redistribution of world trade, agro-food industrialization and crises in fuel, financial and product markets, climate change, the continued growth of India and China, and the rise of entrepreneurial economy. Current research addresses the thesis that sound industrial policy can significantly improve a country’s economic performance (Pereira & dos Santos, 2023; Nem Singh, 2023; Lane, 2020).
Lashkaripour and Lugovskyy (2022) study the impact of three industrial policy tools on national income. They show that for most economies the unimplemented benefits of deep cooperation dominate both the short-run and long-run benefits of unilateral policy tools. A conclusion is made that coordinated international cooperation is more beneficial to a state than unilateral trade policies.
A significant number of studies is devoted to the industrial policy of individual countries and industries. For example, Sunley et al. (2022) study the relationship between industrial and regional policy to achieve economic growth in the UK. Bonvillian (2022) points to the US transition to the industrial innovation policy due to technological competition with China and the need to achieve leadership in advanced technologies. The work by Conley and van Acker (2011) demonstrate the need for industrial policy to improve the structure to overcome resource dependence and climate change. Current publications investigate the industrial policy of supranational groups such as the European Union (hereafter EU) (Molica, 2024; Pichler et al., 2021), EAEU (Kamalyan et al., 2022), its change over time (Carlsson, 2016; Bulfone, 2022). McNamara (2023) investigates the approaches of a common EU industrial policy based on market interventions and a new geopolitical strategy in the current conditions. As emphasized by Pichler et al. (2021), the EU’s new industrial strategy aims for it to “become more competitive as [industry] becomes greener and more circular”1 , and to “create leading markets for clean technologies and provide leadership for European industry at the global level”2 .
The role of industrial policy in creating China’s unprecedented economic growth has been the subject of a considerable number of publications (Chu, 2017; Liu, 2022; Herrera et al., 2022). They showed that China’s shipbuilding policy (Barwick et al., 2019) had helped to propel China’s shipbuilding industry to global leadership through strong investment support. In a study by DiPippo et al. (2022) on Chinese industrial policy, public financing of priority areas and government support are recognized as the most effective tools. Among the priority institutional mechanisms of government support for technological development are technology transfer support, public-private research consortia and public research institutes, while direct subsidies, R&D grants and financial coordination are listed among the most important market mechanisms for technology development.
Researchers also note the high effectiveness of China’s industrial policy, built on five-year planning and targeted support for priority industries (Cen et al., 2023), which impacts competing companies from the United States, Japan, and other industrialized countries and has brought the country to the world leading positions. In addition, the article examines the strategies and tools used by U.S. firms to protect their interests and competitiveness in the face of increasing global technological competition. The study shows that U.S. firms are actively using tools such as lobbying, legal measures, and strategic alliances to counter China’s industrial policies. The focus is on how these strategies help maintain technological leadership and protect the inner market from external threats.
Lane’s (2022) empirical retrospective study of the South Korean economic miracle analyzes the role of industrial policy in the establishment of heavy and chemical industries. In addition to increasing industrial production in the selected industries, this caused improvements in a range of macroeconomic indicators, from labor productivity to the country’s export. Investment promotion and trade policy are recognized as key instruments of industrial policy. In this case, targeted lending through subsidized, predominantly public, strategic loans with low interest rates and long repayment periods was the main lever of industrial policy.
Researchers also investigate industrial policies for the development of specific industries: a successful impact of industrial policy when establishing a bioethanol industry in Brazil (Mingo & Khanna, 2014), new renewable energy industries and a typology of industries from the perspective of their response to the industrial policies implemented by the state (Kelsey, 2018). Harrison et al. (2017) studied the green industrial policy and cautioned against exaggerating the impact of industrial policy in the context of emissions regulation and renewable energy. Qiao et al. (2022) establish a link between industrial policy measures and industrial production in the targeted industries, as well as indirect effects on related industries, by the example of hydrogen transportation. The positive impact of government industrial policy on output growth and industry structure change is shown, using the example of the Indian automobile industry (Sharmelly & Ray, 2018) and the pharmaceutical industry (Chandran & Brahmachari, 2018). At the same time, the limitations of the industrial policy impact in oligopolistic market are pointed out (Mcgovern, 2011).
Regional industrial policy in its relationship with the state-wide industrial policy is a special field of study. The authors emphasize the need for industrial policy to equalize economic growth in the regions (Bailey, 2023), criticize the cluster approach and propose the horizontal spatial approach based on intellectual specialization (Nathan & Overman, 2013), the latter approach being also approved to support lagging regions (Barzotto et al., 2020). Hervas-Oliver et al. (2022) point out the need to build integration between governmental structures and regional actors to develop an effective strategic industrial policy.
Juhász et al. (2024) in their analytical summarizing paper show that industrial policy is becoming increasingly relevant in the international arena and its practices are export-oriented and technocratic, with more than 60 % of industrial policy documents being company-specific and sector-specific. They also note that industrial policy is applied unevenly, concentrating in countries with high per capita incomes, such as Germany, Japan, Brazil, and Canada.
Having analyzed publications on industrial policy, we may summarize the main tools and approaches that can be used for its implementation (Table 1). What is common in these approaches is that the tools of industrial policy impact are aimed at financial and investment support for the development of specific industries and competitiveness in foreign markets.
Table 1
Main tools of industrial policy implementation in the studies of various authors
Таблица 1. Основные инструменты реализации промышленной политики в исследованиях разных авторов
Researcher / Автор исследования
Industrial policy tools / Инструменты промышленной политики
R. Juhász et al.
–financing and subsidizing of trade;
– financial grants, financial assistance in foreign markets;
– support for local sources of supply;
– credit guarantees to producers;
– import tariffs /
– финансирование и субсидирование торговли;
– финансовые гранты, финансовая помощь на зарубежных рынках;
– поддержка местных источников поставок;
– кредитные гарантии производителям;
– импортные тарифы
– a legal framework, which creates an administrative and legal environment favorable to economic activity;
– a political climate that supports the objectives defined by the government;
– financial assistance and tools to improve the position of selected beneficiaries /
– правовая база, создающая административную и правовую среду, благоприятную для экономической деятельности;
– политический климат, поддерживающий цели, определенные правительством;
– финансовая помощь и инструменты для улучшения положения выбранных бенефициаров
K. R. McNamara
– fiscal innovations and market interventions;
– large cross-border innovation and infrastructure projects in strategic areas;
– regulatory changes and removal of legislative barriers /
– фискальные инновации и рыночные интервенции;
– крупные трансграничные инновационные и инфраструктурные проекты в стратегических областях;
– нормативные изменения и устранение законодательных барьеров
R. Cherif, F. Hasanov
– supporting domestic manufacturers in sophisticated industries beyond initial comparative advantage;
– focusing on exporting new industrial products rather than import-substitution industrialization;
– pursuit of fierce competition in the national and foreign markets, coupled with strict accountability /
– поддержка отечественных производителей в сложных отраслях промышленности, выходящая за рамки первоначального сравнительного преимущества;
– ориентация на экспорт новых промышленных продуктов, а не импортозамещающая индустриализация;
– стремление к жесткой конкуренции на внутреннем и на внешнем рынке в сочетании со строгой отчетностью
G. DiPippo et al.
Market tools:
– import tariffs and export subsidies;
– tax incentives;
– incentives for domestic and foreign direct investment.
Direct governmental support:
– government procurement;
– product standards;
– localization requirements;
– product subsidies;
– tax incentives;
– investment promotion agencies;
– industrial trade fairs /
Рыночные инструменты:
– импортные тарифы и экспортные субсидии;
– налоговые льготы;
– стимулирование внутренних и прямых иностранных инвестиций.
Прямая государственная поддержка:
– государственные закупки;
– стандарты на продукцию;
– требования к локализации;
– субсидии на продукцию;
– налоговые льготы;
– агентства по привлечению инвестиций;
– торговые промышленные выставки
Turning to industrial policy at the present stage is explained, first of all, by the development of technologies of the fourth industrial revolution, which in many respects become an instrument of geopolitical superiority (Crespi et al., 2021. P. 352), overcome national barriers and entail a complete change in the economic paradigm (Farrand & Carrapico, 2022), threatening to destroy the political sovereignty of states (Pohle & Thiel, 2020). The special role of industrial policy in the period of mastering the fourth industrial revolution technologies has been noted (Kondratyev et al., 2022; Souza Júnior et al., 2022; Bilbao Ubillos et al., 2024).
A significant number of works by Russian authors are devoted to the Russian industrial policy. They substantiate measures to accelerate economic growth based on the construction of production complexes of a new technological mode (Bodrunov, 2015; Glazyev, 2019). An institutional approach to industrial policy is proposed, based on forming trustful interaction between the state, regional authorities and business communities with the participation of advisory development agencies (Polterovich, 2014). The studies by Tatarkin and Romanova (2007, 2008) emphasize the importance of a systemic multi-subject approach to industrial policy in Russia based on public-private partnership. Romanova and Ponomareva focus on a broad understanding of the role of industrial policy in transforming the economy structure and forming a favorable business environment (Romanova and Ponomareva, 2020. P. 28). Simachev et al. (2022) draw attention to the need to transform industrial policy in order to increase the economy sustainability, improve its structure and comply with the global trends in industrial development. It is shown that in the Russian realities, the industrial policy priorities should rely on the industrial technological development and financing of investment activity (Aganbegyan, 2012, 2024).
In this respect, industrial policy in the Union State of Russia and Belarus becomes more focused on scientific-technological development and is considered as a key tool to ensure economic security (Zemskov, 2023; Pak & Andronova, 2024). It is shown that a coordinated industrial policy can become a factor in overcoming systemic limitations of technical-technological development in the Union State (Bainev & Runkov, 2018). Macroeconomic integration processes in the Union State are studied (Bobkov, 2022; Bakhlov & Bakhlova, 2022). The importance of industrial cooperation is emphasized (Kokhno, 2019), but the incomplete implementation of the planned Union Programs is also stated (Prikhodko, 2024. P. 91). There is also a criticism of integration processes in the Union State, which are largely hindered at the stage of harmonization of the two countries’ economic interests (Suzdaltsev, 2021). An article by Lepesh proposes the use of the following mechanisms for a coordinated industrial policy of Russia and Belarus: specialized cross-border clusters, public-private partnership, joint industrial production, national projects, federal and regional development institutions (Lepesh, 2022. P. 9). The industrial policy objects are: scientific and technical reserve, integrated development of territories, industrial potential of enterprises and industries. It is proposed to create a special body of the Union State to build industrial production into global technological chains based on the latest technologies (Pobyvaev, 2017). It is shown that the main instrument of industrial policy of the Union State is planning and implementing the joint scientific-technical programs (Shurubovich, 2016. P. 15). At the same time, the authors note the insufficient number of works devoted to analyzing the industrial policy tools in the Union State of Russia and Belarus.
Evolution of the industrial policy of the Union State of Russia and Belarus
The evolution of the Common Industrial Policy of the Union State dates back to the declaration of the need for cooperation in the late 1990s and has come a long way to practical implementation in the form of signing important agreements in 2023–2024 (Table 2). The most important steps were the adoption of agreements on the recognition of technological operations, intensification of cooperation and creation of joint productions, as well as the development of a joint “Strategy of Scientific and Technological Development of the Union State for the period up to 2035” 3 . This contributes to strengthening the industrial base of the Union State and enhancing competitiveness in the inner and foreign markets.
Table 2
Evolution of the Common industrial policy of the Union State of Russia and Belarus, 1999–2024
Таблица 2. Эволюция Единой промышленной политики Союзного государства России и Беларуси, 1999–2024 гг.
Year / Год
Event / Событие
1999
Signing of the Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Republic of Belarus on the implementation of a common structural industrial policy4. The agreement states that the common structural industrial policy of Russia and Belarus “is an integral part of the economic policy of both states and constitutes a set of measures undertaken by the parties to ensure the stabilization and growth of industrial production based on increasing its efficiency and the competitiveness of the states in domestic and foreign markets, as well as forming a modern structure of national industrial complexes”5 / Подписание Соглашения между Правительством Российской Федерации и Правительством Республики Беларусь о проведении единой структурной промышленной политики, где отмечается, что единая структурная промышленная политика РФ и РБ «является составной частью экономической политики обоих государств и представляет собой комплекс мер, осуществляемых сторонами в целях обеспечения стабилизации и роста промышленного производства на основе повышения его эффективности и конкурентоспособности государств на внутреннем и внешнем рынках, а также формирования современной структуры национальных промышленных комплексов»
October 2014 / Октябрь 2014
Review of the draft action plan for the formation and implementation of a common structural industrial policy within the Union State. The Council of Ministers of the Union State adopted the Resolution “On the draft action plan for the formation and implementation of a common structural industrial policy within the Union State”6 / Рассмотрение проекта плана мероприятий по формированию и реализации единой структурной промышленной политики в рамках Союзного государства. На заседании Совета Министров Союзного государства подписана Резолюция «О проекте Плана мероприятий по формированию и реализации единой структурной промышленной политики в рамках Союзного государства»
November 2021 / Ноябрь 2021
Approval by the Supreme State Council of the Union State of 28 union programs on integration, including programs on economy and industry. Adoption of the Decree on the main directions for the implementation of the provisions of the Treaty on the establishment of the Union State for 2021–20237, including the formation of a common industrial policy / Утверждение Высшим государственным советом Союзного государства 28 союзных программ по интеграции, включая программы по экономике и промышленности. Принятие Декрета об Основных направлениях реализации положений Договора о создании Союзного государства на 2021–2023 гг., включая формирование единой промышленной политики / Вступление в силу соглашения о признании технологических операций, направленного на перевод промышленных предприятий на общие стандарты и создание условий для свободного выхода на рынки двух стран. Решение проблем с доступом к государственным закупкам и подписанием соглашений в области микроэлектроники
December 2022 / Декабрь 2022
Entry into force of the agreement on the recognition of technological operations, aimed at transitioning industrial enterprises to common standards and creating conditions for free access to the markets of both countries. Resolution of issues related to access to public procurement and the signing of agreements in the field of microelectronics / Вступление в силу соглашения о признании технологических операций, направленного на перевод промышленных предприятий на общие стандарты и создание условий для свободного выхода на рынки двух стран. Решение проблем с доступом к государственным закупкам и подписанием соглашений в области микроэлектроники
2022–2023
Signing of four key intergovernmental agreements: on the common industrial policy; on the recognition of technological operations within the Union State; on the development of microelectronic technologies, design and production of electronic component bases and electronic engineering; on the development of the machine-tool industry8 / Подписание четырех важнейших межправительственных соглашений: о единой промышленной политике; о признании технологических операций на территории Союзного государства; о развитии микроэлектронных технологий, проектирования и производства электронной компонентной базы и электронного машиностроения; о развитии станкоинструментальной промышленности
February 15, 2023 / 15 февраля 2023
Signing of the intergovernmental Agreement on the common industrial policy, which accelerated the coordination of industrial sectors of the two countries and created a legal basis for joint projects9 / Подписание межправительственного Соглашения о единой промышленной политике, которое ускорило координацию отраслей промышленности двух стран и создало правовую основу для совместных проектов
April 2023 / Апрель 2023
Initiation of the development of mechanisms for the implementation of the Agreement on the common industrial policy aimed at ensuring the technological sovereignty of the Union State, as well as the development of production cooperation and scientific and technical cooperation / Начало выработки механизмов реализации Соглашения о единой промышленной политике, направленных на обеспечение технологического суверенитета Союзного государства, а также развитие производственной кооперации и научно-технического сотрудничества
January 2024 / Январь 2024
Approval by Decree of the Supreme State Council of the Union State dated January 29, 2024, No. 2, of the Plan for the implementation of the main directions for the implementation of the provisions of the Treaty on the establishment of the Union State for 2024–202610, including the conduct of the common industrial policy / Утверждение Декретом Высшего Государственного Совета Союзного государства от 29 января 2024 г. № 2 Плана реализации Основных направлений реализации положений Договора о создании Союзного государства на 2024–2026 гг., включая проведение Единой промышленной политики
Resolution dated January 29, 2024, No. 2 “On the strategy for scientific and technological development of the Union State up to 2035”11 / Постановление от 29 января 2024 г. № 2 «О Стратегии научно-технологического развития Союзного государства на период до 2035 года»
June 2024 / Июнь 2024
Approval of the action plans12 for the implementation of the main directions for the implementation of the provisions of the Treaty on the establishment of the Union State for 2024–2026, including implementation of the common industrial policy / Утверждение Планов мероприятий по исполнению Основных направлений реализации положений Договора о создании Союзного государства на 2024–2026 гг., включая проведение Единой промышленной политики
The analysis of strategic documents shows that their interpretations of the “industrial policy” concept are quite similar, which indicates the consistency of approaches between the Union State countries (Table 3). At the same time, one can note that rather contradictory wordings about “competitiveness of the states’ products” in the internal market disappeared from the definition of “industrial policy” in the 2023 Agreement, while new sub-objectives appeared: “acceleration and increase of sustainability in the development of industrial complexes” and “development of innovative industries”.
Table 3
Comparison of the “industrial policy” concept in strategic documents of Russia, Belarus and the Union State of Russia and Belarus
Таблица 3. Сравнение понятия «промышленная политика» в стратегических документахРоссии, Беларуси и Союзного государства России и Беларуси
Russia / Россия
Belarus / Беларусь
Союзное государство России и Беларуси / Union State of Russia and Belarus
Federal Law “On industrial policy in the Russian Federation”13 / ФЗ «О промышленной политике в Российской Федерации»
Program for the Development of the Industrial Complex of the Republic of Belarus until 2020” (Resolution of the Council of Ministers No. 622 of July 5, 2012) / «Программа развития промышленного комплекса Республики Беларусь на период до 2020 года» (Постановление Совета Министров от 5 июля 2012 г. № 622)
Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Republic of Belarus on the common structural industrial policy of September 8, 199914 / Соглашение между Правительством Российской Федерации и Правительством Республики Беларусь о проведении единой структурной промышленной политики от 8 сентября 1999 г.
Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Republic of Belarus on the common industrial policy of February 15, 2023 / Соглашение между Правительством Российской Федерации и Правительством Республики Беларусь о единой промышленной политике от 15 февраля 2023 г.
Industrial policy is a set of legal, economic, organizational and other measures aimed at the development of the industrial potential of the Russian Federation, ensuring the production of competitive industrial products / Промышленная политика – комплекс правовых, экономических, организационных и иных мер, направленных на развитие промышленного потенциала Российской Федерации, обеспечение производства конкурентоспособной промышленной продукции
Industrial policy is a system of legal and economic measures and actions of the industrial policy subjects, based on the priority of ensuring competitiveness of the national economy, stable and innovative socio-economic development of the Republic of Belarus / Промышленная политика – система правовых и экономических мер и действий субъектов промышленной политики исходя из приоритетного обеспечения конкурентоспособности национальной экономики, стабильного и инновационного социально-экономического развития Республики Беларусь
Common structural industrial policy of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus is an integral part of the economic policy of both states; a set of measures implemented by the parties to ensure stabilization and growth of industrial production, based on increasing its efficiency and competitiveness of products of the states in internal and foreign markets, as well as the formation of a modern structure of national industrial complexes, based on the common goals and tasks in the field of industrial complexes development / Единая структурная промышленная политика РФ и РБ – составная часть экономической политики обоих государств; комплекс мер, осуществляемых сторонами в целях обеспечения стабилизации и роста промышленного производства на основе повышения его эффективности и конкурентоспособности продукции государств на внутреннем и внешнем рынках, а также формирования современной структуры национальных промышленных комплексов, основываясь на единстве целей и общности задач в области развития промышленных комплексов
Common industrial policy is the parties’ involvement in the formation and organization of industry in order to stimulate the growth of industrial production (accelerating and improving the sustainable development of industrial complexes of states and their competitiveness, creating conditions for the development of new innovative industries) / Единая промышленная политика – участие сторон в формировании и организации промышленности в целях стимулирования роста промышленного производства (ускорения и повышения устойчивости развития промышленных комплексов государств и их конкурентоспособности, формирование условий для развития новых инновационных производств)
Common to all the studied documents is the orientation of industrial policy towards the development of industrial potential and ensuring the competitiveness of industrial products, while the tasks of industrial policy are to increase efficiency and create conditions for innovative development. This said, in 1999 one of the tasks was to form a modern structure of industrial complexes, while in 2023 the priority shifted to accelerating and increasing the sustainability of development. In addition, the Union State emphasizes the importance of interstate cooperation, which is reflected in joint agreements.
The analysis of strategic documents of the Union State of Russia and Belarus shows that the main industrial policy tools are the development of industrial and technological cooperation, implementation of large industrial integration projects, development and implementation of targeted Union programs financed from the joint budget. If we compare the tools of the Union State’s common industrial policy implementation in 1998 and 2023, reflected in the Agreements on the common industrial policy between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Republic of Belarus (Table 4), it becomes obvious that the 2023 Agreement introduces more modern support mechanisms, emphasizing the financing of projects with integration effect based on the world best practices, import substitution and elimination of barriers. This reflects the current economic realities and the need to adapt to new geopolitical conditions. At the same time, the main principles and tasks stipulated in the 1999 Agreement remain unchanged, which emphasizes the long-term significance of the Union State’s industrial policy.
Table 4
Tools for the implementation of the Common Industrial Policy of the Union State of Russia and Belarus in 1999 and 2023
Таблица 4. Инструменты реализации Единой промышленной политики Союзного государства России и Беларуси в 1999 и 2023 гг.
Source: compiled by the authors based on the cited documents.
Источник: составлено авторами в соответствии с процитированными документами.
Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Republic of Belarus on the common industrial policy of February 15, 202315 / Соглашение между Правительством Российской Федерации и Правительством Республики Беларусь о единой промышленной политике от 15 февраля 2023 г.
Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Republic of Belarus on the common structural industrial policy of September 8, 199916 / Соглашение между Правительством Российской Федерации и Правительством Республики Беларусь о проведении единой структурной промышленной политики от 8 сентября 1999 г.
– expanding the mechanisms to support projects within the Union State, reducing barriers and forming conditions for the industrial cooperation development;
– ensuring mutual participation of organizations, financial and non-financial institutions, banks of the Union State countries in the implementation of projects by searching and selecting projects with integration effect based on the world best practices;
– stimulating the development of new types of competitive products manufactured in the Union State territory and preparing import substitution plans on their basis for supplies to the Union State inner market and exports to third countries;
– synchronizing the concept of scientific-technical programs of the Union State with import substitution plans and their implementation;
– creating conditions for the use of advanced financial products during the implementation of joint projects on the Union State territory;
– eliminating barriers to the movement of industrial goods in the common Union State market / – Расширение механизмов поддержки проектов в рамках Союзного государства, снижение барьеров и формирование условий для развития производственной кооперации;
– обеспечение взаимного участия организаций, финансовых и нефинансовых институтов, банков государств Сторон Союзного государства в реализации проектов путем проведения поиска и отбора проектов с интеграционным эффектом на основе наилучших мировых практик;
– стимулирование развития новых видов конкурентоспособной продукции, произведенной на территории Союзного государства, и подготовки на их основе планов по импортозамещению для поставок на внутренний рынок Союзного государства и экспорта в третьи страны;
– синхронизация концепции научно-технических программ Союзного государства с планами по импортозамещению и их реализации;
– создание условий для использования прогрессивных финансовых продуктов при реализации совместных проектов на территории Союзного государства;
– устранение барьеров на пути движения промышленных товаров на общем рынке Союзного государства
– developing production and technological cooperation between the participating countries based on the Agreement on industrial cooperation17 of March 29, 1999;
– creating transnational economic structures, including interstate financial and industrial groups;
– developing and implementing joint production and scientific-technical programs (primarily science-intensive and high-tech) related to structural transformations in industry, approved by the Executive Committee of the Union of Belarus and Russia in accordance with the established procedure and financed from the Union State budget / – Развитие производственно-технологической кооперации между странами-участницами на основе Соглашения о производственной кооперации18 от 29 марта 1999 г.;
– создание транснациональных хозяйственных структур, в том числе межгосударственных финансово-промышленных групп;
– разработка и реализация связанных со структурными преобразованиями в промышленности совместных производственных и научно-технических программ (в первую очередь наукоемких и высокотехнологичных), утверждаемых в установленном порядке Исполнительным комитетом Союза Беларуси и России и финансируемых из бюджета Союзного государства
Despite the 25 years between the documents, the basic principles and objectives of the Union State’s industrial policy remained unchanged. At the same time, the 2023 Agreement emphasizes the expansion of project support mechanisms and the creation of conditions for industrial cooperation, as well as special attention is paid to ensuring mutual participation of financial and non-financial institutions and banks of the Union State members in the projects implementation. In addition, compared to the 1999 Agreement, the 2023 Agreement provides for synchronization of scientific-technical programs with import substitution plans and their implementation to stimulate the development of new types of products, as well as for the elimination of barriers to the movement of industrial goods. The inclusion of import substitution plans and their implementation in the 2023 Agreement indicates adaptation to sanctions pressure and the need to achieve technological sovereignty in key sectors. At that, the emphasis on synchronizing scientific-technical programs with import substitution reflects the importance of innovations and technological progress.
It should be noted that both Agreements emphasize the development of industrial and technological cooperation and are aimed at stimulating the growth of industrial production and improving the products competitiveness. On the one hand, this means that the main objectives and tools of industrial policy remain important for deepening the economic integration of Russia and Belarus within the Union State. Such tasks as industrial cooperation and the creation of cross-national structures remain relevant for the industrial policy of the Union State, regardless of the level of their past implementation. Their retention in the new Agreement emphasizes their strategic importance.
On the other hand, the objectives and tasks outlined in the 1999 Agreement were not fully implemented for a number of reasons: a) economic crises, changes in the geopolitical situation and external sanctions, which affected the implementation of a common industrial policy; b) complex bureaucratic procedures and lack of coordination between different levels of government and public institutions; c) lack of funding both from state budgets and private businesses; d) dependence on foreign technological solutions, lack of certain knowledge-intensive technologies, insufficient investments in R&D; e) insufficient level of co-operation between Russian and Belarusian enterprises, problems with implementation of planned integration projects due to lack of co-ordination and unwillingness to cede control, etc.
The action plans for the implementation of the Union State Treaty for 2024–202618 cover the following key areas: macroeconomic policy, financial market, tax policy and customs, industrial policy and trade, industrial and technological policy19 . The document emphasizes the importance and need for joint action. The proposed tools for the Union State’s industrial policy are summarized in Table 5.
Table 5
Main directions of implementation of the provisions of the Treaty on the Union State Establishment for 2024–2026
Таблица 5. Основные направления реализации положений Договора о создании Союзного государства на 2024–2026 годы
Source: compiled by the authors based on https://soyuz.by/
Источник: составлено авторами по данным https://soyuz.by/
Direction / Направление
Implementation tools / Инструменты реализации
1. Implementation of a coordinated structural macroeconomic policy / Проведение согласованной структурной макроэкономической политики
1. Preparing forecasts of socio-economic development of the Union State.
2. Supporting small and medium-sized enterprises using digital services and platforms.
3. Stimulating investment activity, facilitating the implementation of joint investment projects.
4. Monitoring the application of common competition rules and improving them.
5. Providing interaction between antimonopoly authorities of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus in identifying and suppressing violations of common competition rules /
1. Подготовка прогнозов социально-экономического развития Союзного государства.
2. Поддержка малого и среднего предпринимательства с использованием цифровых сервисов и платформ.
3. Стимулирование инвестиционной активности, содействие реализации совместных инвестиционных проектов.
4. Мониторинг применения единых правил конкуренции и их совершенствование.
5. Взаимодействие антимонопольных органов РФ и РБ при выявлении и пресечении нарушений единых правил конкуренции
2. Creation of a common financial market / Создание общего финансового рынка
1. Cooperation in the financial and banking sphere, in terms of harmonization of:
a) approaches to monetary policy in order to follow the inflation targeting strategy;
b) approaches to currency regulation and currency control;
c) norms on credit terms regulating the activities of credit and non-credit financial organizations;
d) national payment systems, including innovative means payment for cross-border settlements.
e) requirements for ensuring information security in the financial sphere by:
– countering illegal financial transactions (in terms of ensuring information security);
– mechanisms for recognizing electronic digital signature in financial documents in electronic form and ensuring their legal validity / 1. Сотрудничество в финансово-банковской сфере, в части гармонизации:
а) подходов к денежно-кредитной политике в целях следования стратегии таргетирования инфляции;
б) подходов по валютному регулированию и валютному контролю;
в) норм регулирования деятельности кредитных и некредитных финансовых организаций по условиям кредитования;
г) национальных платежных систем, включая инновационные средства платежа для трансграничных расчетов.
д) требований в области обеспечения информационной безопасности в финансовой сфере посредством:
– противодействия осуществлению незаконных финансовых операций (в части обеспечения информационной безопасности);
– механизмов признания электронной цифровой подписи (электронной подписи) в финансовых документах в электронном виде и обеспечения их юридической силы
3. Coordinated tax policy and cooperation in customs / Согласованная налоговая политика и сотрудничество в таможенной сфере
1. Work of the Supranational Tax Committee on the implementation of the Treaty on General Principles of Taxation on Indirect Taxes.
2. Conducting a coordinated tax policy to avoid double taxation, for the development of sectoral cooperation, import substitution, and strengthening technological sovereignty.
3. Development and implementation of a “green corridor” to accelerate the delivery, by all transportation means, of third country goods of strategic importance for the Union State.
4. Expansion of the list of goods of mutual interest which are subject to traceability in Russia and Belarus.
5. Identification of problematic issues arising in the movement of EAEU goods within the Union State, development of proposals for common approaches to the administration of this process /
1. Работа Наднационального налогового комитета по реализации положений Договора об общих принципах налогообложения по косвенным налогам.
2. Проведение согласованной налоговой политики во избежание двойного налогообложения, для развития отраслевого сотрудничества (кооперации), импортозамещения, укрепления технологического суверенитета.
3. Разработка и внедрение «зеленого коридора» для ускорения доставки товаров третьих стран всеми видами транспорта, имеющими стратегическое значение для стран Союзного государства.
4. Расширение перечня товаров, подлежащих прослеживаемости в России и Беларуси, представляющих взаимный интерес.
5. Выявление проблемных вопросов, возникающих при движении товаров ЕАЭС на территории Союзного государства, а также выработки предложений по единым подходам к администрированию этого процесса
4. Implementation of a common industrial policy and trade cooperation / Проведение единой промышленной политики и сотрудничество в области торговли
1. Functioning of the mechanism of marking goods with identification means in the Union State territory.
2. Import-substituting investment and cooperation projects with priority involvement of the Union State enterprises through the implementation of:
a) road maps in the sphere of:
– microelectronics;
– machine-tool construction;
b) long-term cooperation programs in the sphere of:
– agricultural and automotive engineering;
– elevator construction;
– aircraft construction;
– specialized machine building;
– automotive components;
– electric vehicle manufacturing and related infrastructure.
3. Practical implementation of agreements for recognizing technological operations carried out in the Union State territory.
4. Provision of mutual non-discriminatory participation in subsidy programs, preferential leasing, and in procurement at own expense.
5. Development of cooperation between Belarusian enterprises and major state corporations of Russia (Rosatom State Corporation, Rostekh State Corporation, Gazprom Public Corporation, etc.).
6. Ensuring mutual admission to participation in stock exchange (organized) trading in the commodity markets of the Union State, development of a roadmap to ensure the creation of a common stock exchange (organized) commodity market.
7. Analyzing the legislation and practice of its application to eliminate restrictions on access to public procurement.
8. Identification of provisions of the Common Rules on consumer protection /
1. Функционирование механизма маркировки товаров средствами идентификации на территории Союзного государства.
2. Реализация импортозамещающих инвестиционных и кооперационных проектов с приоритетным привлечением к их реализации предприятий Союзного государства через реализацию:
а) дорожных карт в сфере:
– микроэлектроники;
– станкостроения;
б) долгосрочных программ сотрудничества в сфере:
– сельскохозяйственного и автомобильного машиностроения;
– лифтостроения;
– авиастроения;
– специализированного машиностроения;
– автокомпонентов;
– электромобилестроения и соответствующей инфраструктуры.
3. Практическая реализация договоренностей по вопросу признания технологических операций, осуществляемых на территории Союзного государства.
4. Предоставление взаимного недискриминационного участия в программах субсидирования, льготного лизинга, а также в закупках за счет собственных средств.
5. Развитие сотрудничества белорусских предприятий с крупными государственными корпорациями Российской Федерации (Госкорпорация «Росатом», Госкорпорация «Ростех», ПАО «Газпром» и др.).
6. Обеспечение взаимного допуска к участию в биржевых (организованных) торгах на товарных рынках Союзного государства, а также разработка дорожной карты по обеспечению создания единого биржевого (организованного) товарного рынка.
7. Проведение анализа законодательства и практики его применения для устранения ограничений доступа к государственным закупкам.
8. Выявление положений Единых правил в области защиты прав потребителей, требующих совершенствования
6. Work of the Union State common energy markets and safety of nuclear energy use / Работа объединенных энергетических рынков Союзного государства и безопасность использования атомной энергии
1. Harmonization of normative acts and standards in forming the common markets of:
– gas;
– electricity;
– oil and oil products.
2. Interaction for ensuring safe operation of nuclear energy facilities.
3. Creation of common conditions for stimulating the introduction of energy management systems at the most energy-intensive enterprises of the Union State /
1. Согласование нормативных актов и стандартов в области формирования объединенного рынка:
– газа;
– электроэнергии;
– нефти и нефтепродуктов.
2. Взаимодействие по вопросам обеспечения безопасной эксплуатации объектов использования атомной энергии.
3. Создание единых условий для стимулирования внедрения систем энергетического менеджмента на наиболее энергоемких предприятиях Союзного государства
9. Cooperation in scientific, technical and scientific-technological sphere / Сотрудничество в научно-технической и научно-технологической сфере
1. Formation of a common scientific-technological environment of the Union State.
2. Development and implementation of the Strategy of scientific and technological development of the Union State until 2035.
3. Development and implementation of scientific-technical programs and projects of the Union State aimed at creating new import-substituting products and industries.
4. Promoting scientific-technical cooperation:
– based on the project on constructing the Center for Nuclear Research and Technologies in the Republic of Belarus;
– in the field of atomic and hydrogen energy;
– in development of targeted innovative radiopharmaceuticals;
– within the consortium “International Center for Research on the Multipurpose Fast Neutron Research Reactor” /
1. Формирование единого научно-технологического пространства Союзного государства.
2. Разработка и реализация Стратегии научно-технологического развития Союзного государства на период до 2035 г.
3. Разработка и реализация научно-технических программ и проектов Союзного государства, направленных на создание новой импортозамещающей продукции и производств.
4. Наращивание научно-технического сотрудничества:
– на базе проекта по сооружению Центра ядерных исследований и технологий на территории Республики Беларусь;
– в области атомной и водородной энергии;
– в области разработки таргетных инновационных радиофармацевтических лекарственных препаратов;
– в рамках консорциума «Международный центр исследований на базе многоцелевого исследовательского реактора на быстрых нейтронах»
The analysis of the program documents on industrial policy allows highlighting the following positive aspects:
However, the same problem remains as with the Union Programs, leaving the Agreement more of a “protocol of intentions”:
common wording: as in the Union Programs of 2021 to 2023, there prevails the rhetoric of “convergence of positions”, “harmonization”, “coordination”, “information transfer”, which emphasizes, on the one hand, the desire for unification; on the other hand, these wordings swarm from one document to another, while harmonization and unification have not been achieved over the course of 25 years;
Despite the shortcomings, the document sets a stable basis for practical implementation and coordination of joint efforts on economic and industrial cooperation between the two Union states.
Comparison of the development directions of the Union State Common Industrial Policy for 2021–2023 and 2024–2026
We compared the Common Industrial Policy tools by analyzing and comparing the Main Directions for the implementation of provisions of the Treaty on the Union State Establishment for 2021–202320 and 2024–202621 . The comparison shows a certain evolution and expansion of the Union State industrial policy focus. The analysis of the provisions aimed at the creation and implementation of integration policy between Russia and Belarus in the industrial sphere has shown that, on the one hand, both documents emphasize the implementation of the Common Industrial Policy:
a) the importance of pursuing a Common Industrial Policy of the Union State is emphasized, which includes, first of all, coordination of actions on normative legal regulation;
b) development of cooperation in the industrial sectors of both states, including for the implementation of import-substitution projects;
c) the “cross-cutting nature” of these documents is noticeable: the Union Program on the formation of a common industrial policy for 2021–2023 indicated the need for “mutual recognition of technological operations carried out in the Union State territory” 22 , while the Action Plan for the implementation of the Union Policy for 2021–2023 mentions the need for “mutual recognition of technological operations carried out in the Union State territory”. The Plan of Implementation Measures for 2024–2026 focuses on “practical implementation of agreements on the recognition of technological operations carried out in the Union State territory”23 .
On the other hand, the following differences were identified:
– first, the 2021–2023 document did not mention specific industry support roadmaps, whereas the 2024–2026 document states specific areas such as microelectronics, machine tool construction, agricultural and automotive engineering, specialized machine building and elevator construction;
– second, the 2024–2026 document pays more attention to technological development and import substitution, including plans to develop various areas of mechanical engineering and related infrastructure;
– third, the 2024–2026 document presents more detailed and specific measures, including the development of specific industries and the preparation of normative legal acts regulating joint activities in these areas; the 2021–2023 main directions were more generalized, focused on creating basic conditions and mechanisms for integration;
– fourth, while the 2021–2023 Union Program specified the implementation terms (by the beginning of 2023), the 2024–2026 Plan of Measures has only two paragraphs specifying the terms (31.12.2025) and control points (reporting semi-annually) of the seven points dedicated to the Union State Common Industrial Policy implementation.
Thus, the comparison of the directions of the Common Industrial Policy presented in the Main Directions for the Implementation of the Provisions of the Treaty on the Union State Establishment for 2021–2023 and for 2024–2026 shows that in 2024–2026, the Union State concretized the measures to implement the Common Industrial Policy. The introduction of roadmaps, focus on import substitution projects and more detailed directions indicate a desire to improve the effect of joint actions for deeper technological development and integration of the industrial sectors of Russia and Belarus. However, the lack of implementation deadlines for some areas may be critical and requires further elaboration.
Scientific-technical development and regional integration in the Union State
Russia and Belarus are one of the main trade and investment partners for each other. Russia has been ranking first among the countries investing in Belarus for many years, outstripping other, mainly European, countries by a wide margin24 . According to the results of 2023, Russian investments in the Belarusian economy account for more than 60% of the total investment flow, while more than 90 % of Belarusian investments are also directed to Russia. This indicates very close economic ties and the interest of investment agents in interacting with each other, which is confirmed by the growing dynamics of Belarusian-Russian commodity trade turnover (Fig. 1). The increase in commodity trade turnover over the last three years amounted to more than 60%.
Fig. 1. Dynamics of foreign trade turnover in Russia and Belarus
Source: compiled by the author by the data of Belarusian agency BelTA, https://www.belta.by/
Рис. 1. Динамика товарооборота внешней торговли России и Беларуси
Источник: составлено автором по данным белорусского агентства БелТА. https://www.belta.by/
Most of the commodity trade turnover is made up of manufacturing products. The main goods exported from Russia to Belarus in 202225 were oil, oil products and minerals (32 %), as well as products of the manufacturing industry: metals and metal products (12 %), plastics and plastics products (7 %), machinery, equipment and apparatus (7 %), machinery and equipment (5 %), electrical equipment (4%), oilseeds and fruits (2 %). The main items of Belarusian exports to Russia are products of animal origin (16 %): milk, eggs, cheese, butter, meat, honey, as well as machinery, equipment and apparatus (9 %), transport (14 %), plastics, natural and synthetic rubber (6 %), food products (8 %), metals and metal products (6 %).
The priorities of financing scientific-technical development in the Union State countries differ in many respects (Fig. 2). The value of the GDP science intensity for 2017–2022 in Russia exceeds that in Belarus by almost two times, which indicates a higher funding for research and development. There is a downward trend in the GDP science intensity in the Union State, which is more noticeable for Belarus. The share of budget expenditures on financing R&D in Belarus ranges from 0,16 to 0,2 %, while in Russia it is almost twice as high and ranges from 0.41 to 0,51 %. At the same time, the share of investments in machinery and equipment is higher in Belarus, where it was 40,4 % in 2022, with just 30,8 % in Russia. There is a tendency for this share to decrease in the Republic of Belarus and to increase in the Russian Federation.
Fig. 2. Financing of scientific-technological development in the countries of the Union State of Russia and Belarus
Note: RB – Republic of Belarus, RF – Russian Federation.
Source: collected and compiled by the authors with the data of the Federal State Statistics Service of the Russian Federation and the National Statistical Committee of the Republic of Belarus.
Рис. 2. Финансирование научно-технологического развития в странах Союзного государства России и Беларуси
Примечание: РБ – Республика Беларусь, РФ – Российская Федерация.
Источник: собрано и составлено авторами по данным Федеральной службы государственной статистики РФ, Национального статистического комитета Республики Беларусь.
The analysis shows that in Russia R&D is financed more actively and purposefully by the state, while the Republic of Belarus prioritizes investments in production means and innovation activity by organizations. This is confirmed by the economic complexity index (Hidalgo 2021), calculated with international trade data (The Observatory of Economic Complexity26 ). For Belarus, the economic complexity index amounted to 0.84 by 2022 data, ranking 32nd in the world, between Canada and Spain. At the same time, the assessment for the previous five years shows that the Belarusian economy was increasing its economic complexity from 0.78 in 2018 to 0.82 in 2022, which is almost twice as high compared to the Russian Federation. In Russia, the economic complexity index corresponds to the 47th place out of 139 countries, between Kuwait and Lebanon, and its value tends to decrease over the previous five-year period (from 0.49 in 2018 to 0.43 in 2022). However, the economic complexity index based on technology patenting statistics puts Russia in a more favorable position: 17th place in the world ranking for Russia and 63rd for Belarus.
Since industrial policy is designed to influence the activities of certain groups of enterprises, we assume that the economic integration of the Union State countries will change the dynamics of joint ventures’ presence in their regions. The analysis of the number of Belarusian companies with Russian participation in the authorized capital shows multidirectional dynamics (Fig. 3). In 2022 the number of organizations with Russian investments amounted to 2240, including 1056 joint Russian-Belarusian enterprises and 1175 companies with Russian ownership registered in the Republic of Belarus. On the one hand, until 2014 there was an increase in the number of joint ventures and companies with Russian capital in Belarus, followed by a long-term decline. The number of Russian-Belarusian joint ventures continues to decline throughout the entire period under study: from 1704 in 2014 to 1056 in 2022. A local minimum was observed in 2017, during a sharp increase in trade when the new customs code was adopted in EAEU and ratified in Belarus. At the same time, there is an upward trend in the number of Russian foreign companies in Belarus, growing by 168 % over 10 years and in 2022 exceeding the number of joint ventures.
Fig. 3. Number of organizations with Russian capital in the authorized assets in Belarus
Note: According to Belarus statistical accounting, a joint venture is a legal entity of the Republic of Belarus whose authorized capital consists of a share of a foreign investor and a share of natural and/or legal persons of the Republic of Belarus; a foreign organization is a legal entity of the Republic of Belarus with a foreign form of ownership.
Source: compiled by the authors with the data of the National Statistical Committee of the Republic of Belarus.
Рис. 3. Количество организаций с российским капиталом в уставных фондах организаций Беларуси
Примечание: Согласно статистическому учету в Республике Беларусь, совместная организация – это юридическое лицо Республики Беларусь, уставный фонд которого состоит из доли иностранного инвестора и доли физических и (или) юридических лиц Республики Беларусь; иностранная организация – это юридическое лицо Республики Беларусь с иностранной формой собственности.
Источник: составлено авторами по данным Национального статистического комитета Республики Беларусь.
On the one hand, the decrease in the number of organizations with Russian investments in Belarus may have a negative connotation, as it indicates the reduction of economic ties and actual interaction between enterprises in the Union State countries. On the other hand, the number of independent Russian enterprises in Belarus is growing, which may be a consequence of choosing a more suitable form of economic management for Russian investors in the Belarusian market.
Further, we collected and analyzed statistics on the number of Russian-Belarusian joint ventures in Russian regions, which follows the above trends: there is a decrease in the number of Russian-Belarusian joint ventures in Russia. Figure 4 presents data on the Russian-Belarusian joint ventures in Russian regions, where their number is the highest. The main regions of presence, as can be seen, are the border regions: Smolensk, Bryansk, Kaliningrad, as well as the industrially developed Kaluga, Tver, Belgorod regions and the Republic of Tatarstan.
Fig. 4. Dynamics of Russian-Belarusian joint ventures in Russian regions
Source: compiled by the authors with the data of Rosstat regional departments.
Рис. 4. Динамика совместных российско-белорусских предприятий в российских регионах
Источник: составлено авторами по данным региональных управлений Росстата.
The authors collected data on the number of joint ventures with Belarusian capital in 34 Russian regions27 . A vast majority of Russian regions show similar trends of the reduction of joint ventures over the studied period. The peak in the number of registrations of joint ventures occurs in 2017–2018 and is followed by a decline. This trend is likely to be a consequence of the ongoing changes in the economic conditions of the Union State due to the border military conflict, external sanctions pressure, as well as economic and industrial policies.
The number of joint ventures in Russia peaked in 2017–2018, followed by a sharp decline. At the same time, there was a local minimum in the number of Russian enterprises in Belarus, followed by an increase in the number of foreign enterprises with Russian capital in the Belarusian jurisdiction. This indicates that it became less beneficial for enterprises to register joint projects due to the changed external conditions. What kind of changes might these have been? The authors incline to believe that it was influenced by the adoption in late 2016 and subsequent ratification by Belarus of the new EAEU Customs Code28 , which came into force in 2018. The introduction of the EAEU Customs Code was aimed to significantly simplify customs clearance of goods between member countries, eliminate internal barriers to trade and ensure the formation of common markets, which largely determined the further direction of Eurasian integration. Perhaps, the elimination of various administrative barriers and the unification of economic space simplified foreign economic interaction between enterprises and eliminated the need to create joint legal entities to overcome them. In this respect, the Union State of Russia and Belarus, according to a number of experts, represents the core of Eurasian integration and its main driving force. However, the decline in the number of Russian-Belarusian joint ventures can also be seen as a consequence of deterioration of economic interaction.
Thus, the implementation of industrial policy in the Union State countries has ambitious goals. The tasks of industrial and technological development of Russia and Belarus are in many respects similar, as they are determined by the existing problems of reducing the technological gap formed during the years of catching-up development, unfavorable foreign policy environment, significant dependence on the high-tech products exports from developed countries. In this regard, elaboration of effective tools and analyzing the industrial policy effectiveness is an urgent scientific and practical task.
Conclusion
In the current conditions of aggravation of geopolitical situation, great pressure of sanctions, and sharp growth of technological competition in the world markets, it is critically strategically important to build mutually beneficial economic and industrial cooperation in the Union State. Interaction in the sphere of scientific and technological development should be carried out with a view of achieving competitiveness in key areas of the most advanced technologies’ development. Uniting the two states’ efforts in the field of industrial cooperation will make it possible to ensure mutually beneficial partnership, increase trade turnover, ensure access of products to each other’s domestic markets, and jointly enter foreign markets.
In recent years in the Union State the processes of economic integration at the political level have received a fairly wide coverage; significant efforts are made to deepen them, including through the implementation of a common industrial policy. The Agreement on a common industrial policy, which is an integral part of the Main Guidelines for the implementation of the provisions of the Treaty on the Union State Establishment for 2024–2026, is designed to contribute to the goals of building a common industrial, scientific, technological, financial space, uniting material, intellectual and human capital to obtain a new quality of industrial development in the Union State.
The great advantage of forming common approaches to industrial policy consists in the fact that the enterprises of the two states become partners rather than competitors. Assumingly, enterprises of similar industries will interact, sharing experience and creating innovative products. At the same time, the statistics of joint ventures with Belarusian capital in Russia and with Russian capital in Belarus indicates a change in economic conditions in the Union State. Since 2017, the number of joint ventures has been decreasing; this may be a consequence of both a reduction of international barriers in trade and economy and the enterprises’ declined interest in bilateral interactions. It is possible that the formation of a common economic space makes it unprofitable to establish joint ventures, facilitating economic cooperation through simple contractual relations. This assumption is partly confirmed by the growing number of foreign enterprises with Russian capital on the Belarusian market.
It should be noted that the industrial policy of the Union State is currently aimed at overcoming dependence on supplies of foreign equipment and components, creating a common economic space, ensuring common economic conditions for favorable industrial development and achieving leadership in such areas as space, military-industrial complex, energy, microelectronics, automotive industry, unmanned transport systems, medicine and pharmaceuticals. The main tools of industrial policy to achieve these goals are the planning, financing and implementation of joint scientific-technological programs and projects. As a result, this interaction is supposed to not only help withstand geopolitical confrontation and ensure technological sovereignty, but also form the basis for advanced development and occupying leading positions in foreign markets.
The author’s contributions
Е. V. Potaptseva developed the research idea and methodology, searched for and structured information regarding the research topic; prepared the research section on the evolution of program documents of the Russia and Belarus Union State’s industrial policy.
О. S. Bryantseva implemented the research program, collected and processed information, prepared the analysis of foreign and domestic literary sources concerning the research topic; prepared the section on the analysis of scientific and technological development and regional integration in the Union State.
Е. V. Presniakova implemented the research program, prepared the section on the evolution of program documents of the Union State industrial policy.
Вклад авторов
Е. В. Потапцева – разработка идеи и методологии исследования, поиск и структурирование информации относительно тематики исследования. Подготовка раздела исследования по теме эволюции программных документов промышленной политики Союзного государства России и Белоруссии.
О. С. Брянцева – реализация программы исследования, сбор и обработка информации, подготовка анализа зарубежных и отечественных литературных источников, касающихся тематики исследования. Подготовка раздела по анализу научно-технического развития и региональной интеграции в Союзном государстве.
Е. В. Преснякова – реализация программы исследования, подготовка раздела по теме эволюции программных документов промышленной политики Союзного государства.
Conflict of Interest / Конфликт интересов
No conflict of interest is declared by the authors / Авторами не заявлен
1. European Commission. (2020). European industrial strategy. https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/european-industrial-strategy_en; European Commission. (2021). Communication from the commission to the European Parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions. https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/9ab0244c-6ca3-4b11-bef9-422c7eb34f39_en?filename=communication-industrial-strategy-update-2020_en.pdf
2. Ibid.
3. Decree of the Supreme State Council of the Union State No. 2 of 29.01.2024. https://soyuz.by/projects/dekrety-vysshego-gosudarstvennogo-soveta-soyuznogo-gosudarstva/postanovlenie-ot-29-yanvarya-2024-g-2-o-strategii-nauchno-tehnologicheskogo-razvitiya-soyuznogo-gosudarstva-na-period-do-2035-goda
4. “Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Belarus and the Government of the Russian Federation on the implementation of a common structural industrial policy”. (Minsk, 8 September, 1999). (1999). URL: https://base.garant.ru/1155270/ and http://www.levonevski.net/pravo/razdel3/num4/3d41.html
5. The parties agreed to implement measures for the execution of a common structural industrial policy based on:– coordination of priority directions for the development of national industrial production in the course of implementing the unified industrial policy;– execution of major industrial integration projects;– effective utilization of existing production potential, preservation and development of previously established production-technological links, and maintenance of the production profile of enterprises in industries producing globally competitive products.
6. Meeting of the Council of Ministers of the Union State. (October 21, 2014). Resolution “On the draft action plan for the formation and implementation of the common structural industrial policy within the Union State”. http://government.ru/news/15312/
7. Decree No. 6 of November 4, 2021 “On the main directions for the implementation of the provisions of the Treaty on the establishment of the Union State for 2021–2023”. https://посткомсг.рф/docs/item/237509/
8. “What challenges do Russia and Belarus face in the sphere of a common industrial policy?” February 29, 2024. Rossiyskaya Gazeta. https://rg.ru/2024/02/29/v-planovom-poriadke.html
9. “Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Republic of Belarus on the common industrial policy” of February 15, 2023 (entered into force on May 22, 2023) (2023, March 25). Official publication of legal acts. http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/document/0001202305250003
10. Decree No. 2 of 29.01.2024. (2024, January 31). Information-analytical platform of the Union State. https://soyuz.by/projects/dekrety-vysshego-gosudarstvennogo-soveta-soyuznogo-gosudarstva/dekret-ot-29-yanvarya-2024-g-2-ob-osnovnyh-napravleniyah-realizacii-polozheniy-dogovora-o-sozdanii-soyuznogo-gosudarstva-na-2024-2026-gody
11. Decree No. 2 of 29.01.2024. Information-analytical platform of the Union State. https://soyuz.by/projects/dekrety-vysshego-gosudarstvennogo-soveta-soyuznogo-gosudarstva/postanovlenie-ot-29-yanvarya-2024-g-2-o-strategii-nauchno-tehnologicheskogo-razvitiya-soyuznogo-gosudarstva-na-period-do-2035-goda
12. Action plans are adopted for the implementation of the main directions for the implementation of the provisions of the Treaty on the Union State Establishment for 2024-2026. 17.06.2024 (2024, June 17). The Russian Government. http://government.ru/news/51877/
13. On industrial policy in the Russian Federation. No. 488-FZ of 31.12.2014. https://docs.cntd.ru/document/420242984
14. Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Republic of Belarus on the common structural industrial policy of 08.09.1999. (1999). https://base.spinform.ru/show_doc.fwx?rgn=29779
15. Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Republic of Belarus on the common industrial policy of 15.02.2023. Национальный правовой Интернет-портал Республики Беларусь, 3/3998 (2023, June 7). https://pravo.by/document/?guid=12551&p0=A02300001
16. Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Republic of Belarus on the common structural industrial policy of 08.09.1999. (1999). https://base.spinform.ru/show_doc.fwx?rgn=29779
17. Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Republic of Belarus on industrial cooperation (Minsk, 29 March, 1999). (1999). https://base.garant.ru/1155279/
18. Action plans for the implementation of the Main Guidelines can be defined as a set of actions aimed at implementing the agreed goals and objectives within the framework of interstate cooperation, including harmonization of economic policy, financial systems, tax regulation, industrial cooperation and other key areas of interaction.
19. Decree No. 2 of 29.01.2024. (2024, January 31). Information-analytical platform of the Union State. https://soyuz.by/projects/dekrety-vysshego-gosudarstvennogo-soveta-soyuznogo-gosudarstva/dekret-ot-29-yanvarya-2024-g-2-ob-osnovnyh-napravleniyah-realizacii-polozheniy-dogovora-o-sozdanii-soyuznogo-gosudarstva-na-2024-2026-gody
20. Decree of the Supreme State Council of the Union State No. 6 of 04.11.2021. (2021). National legal Internet portal of the Republic of Belarus. https://eaeu.economy.gov.ru/static/media/Directions2021_2023.d75d26f2.pdf
21. Decree of the Supreme State Council of the Union State No. 2 of 29.01.2024. (2024). https://intermol.su/upload/iblock/882/q4m41frh8uhtkrtkmvs1bguhjqdfxf5c.pdf
22. Decree of the Supreme State Council of the Union State No. 6 of 04.11.2021. (2021). National legal Internet portal of the Republic of Belarus. https://eaeu.economy.gov.ru/static/media/Directions2021_2023.d75d26f2.pdf
23. Decree No. 2 от 29.01.2024. (2024, January 31). Information and analytical portal of the Union State. https://soyuz.by/projects/dekrety-vysshego-gosudarstvennogo-soveta-soyuznogo-gosudarstva/dekret-ot-29-yanvarya-2024-g-2-ob-osnovnyh-napravleniyah-realizacii-polozheniy-dogovora-o-sozdanii-soyuznogo-gosudarstva-na-2024-2026-gody
24. Top 10 investor countries by the number of foreign companies. See: Selected statistical indicators of activity of organizations with foreign capital participation in authorized assets in the Republic of Belarus in 2021. (2022, June 9). National Statistical Committee of the Republic of Belarus. https://www.belstat.gov.by/ofitsialnaya-statistika/realny-sector-ekonomiki/strukturnaja_statistika/osnovnye-pokazateli-deyatelnosti-mikroorganizatsiy-i-malykh-organizatsiy/statisticheskie-izdaniya/index_51239/
25. Zolotarev, Yu. V. (2024). On the activity of trade representative office for increasing export-import operations between the companies of Belarus and Russia. Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation. https://www.fr.gov.by/doc/predprinimatelstvo/20240108.pdf
26. The Observatory of Economic Complexity. https://oec.world/en/rankings/eci/hs6/hs96?tab=ranking
27. In 2022, we made inquiries to all territorial bodies of the Federal State Statistics Service about the number of enterprises with Belarusian capital in the region.
28. Treaty on the Customs Code of the Eurasian Economic Union of April 11, 2017. (2017). https://eec.eaeunion.org/comission/department/dep_tamoj_zak/tk_eaes.php
ReferencesАганбегян, А. Г. (2012). О новой промышленной политике. ЭКО, 6(456), 4–22.Aganbegyan, А. (2012). On new economic policy. ECO, 6(456), 4–22. (In Russ.).Аганбегян, А. Г. (2024). Поможет ли России опыт Китая в переходе к социально-экономическому росту на основе подъема технологического и интеллектуального уровней. Общество и экономика, 2, 5–25.Aganbegyan, А. (2024). On the applicability of China’s experience to helping Russia in the transition to socio-economic growth based on the development of technological and intellectual potential. Society and Economy, 2, 5–25. (In Russ.).Байнев, В. Ф., Рунков, Ю. Ю. (2018). О системных препятствиях технико-технологическому развитию Союзного государства Беларуси и России. Национальная безопасность и стратегическое планирование, 1(21), 90–101.Aiginger, K. (2007). Industrial Policy: A Dying Breed or а Re-emerging Phoenix. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 7(3-4), 297–323. doi: 10.1007/s10842-007-0025-7Бахлова, О. В., Бахлов, И. В. (2022). Возможности и угрозы для интеграционного взаимодействия в рамках Союзного государства Беларуси и России: стратегический ситуационный анализ. Управленческое консультирование, 6, 22–35. doi: 10.22394/1726-1139-2022-6-22-35Bailey, D., Pitelis, C., & Tomlinson, P. (2023). Place-based industrial and regional strategy – levelling the playing field. Regional Studies, 57, 1–7. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2023.2168260Бобков, В. (2022). Союзное государство: модель интеграции и стратегия развития. Беларуская думка : штомесячны грамадска-палітычны і навукова-папулярны часопіс, 6, 62–68. Бобков_БелорусскаяДумка.pdfBainev, V. F., & Runkov, Y. Y. (2018). On system obstacles for technical and technological development of the Union state of Belarus and Russia. Naczionalnaya bezopasnost i strategicheskoe planirovanie, 1(21), 90–101. (In Russ.).Бодрунов, С. Д. (2015). Промышленная политика России: уроки прошлого, черты настоящего, дизайн будущего. Научные труды Вольного экономического общества России, 6(195), 157–178.Bakhlova, O. V., & Bakhlov, I. V. (2022). Opportunities and Threats for Integration Cooperation within the Framework of the Union State of Belarus and Russia: Strategic Situational Analysis. Part 1. Administrative Consulting, 6, 22–35. (In Russ.). doi: 10.22394/1726-1139-2022-6-22-35.Глазьев, С. Ю. (2019). Методология опережающего развития экономики: как решить поставленную Президентом России задачу рывка в экономическом развитии. Научные труды Вольного экономического общества России, 4(218), 124–132.Barwick, P. J., Kalouptsidi, M., & Zahur, N. B. (2019, July 9). China’s Industrial Policy: an Empirical Evaluation. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3417181Земсков, В. В. (2023). Интеграционные процессы как фактор обеспечения экономической безопасности Союзного государства. Вестник евразийской науки, 15(s1).Barzotto, M., Corradini, C., Fai, F., Labory, S., & Tomlinson, P. (2020). Smart specialisation, Industry 4.0 and lagging regions: some directions for policy. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 7, 318–332. doi: 10.1080/21681376.2020.1803124Камалян, А. К., Цыбульник, Л. В., Пак, А. Ю. (2022). Промышленная политика Евразийского экономического союза. Мировая экономика и международные отношения, 66(11), 28–40. doi: 10.20542/0131-2227-2022-66-11-28-40Bilbao Ubillos, J., Camino-Beldarrain, V., Intxaurburu-Clemente, G., & Velasco Balmaseda, E. (2024). Industry 4.0, servitization, and reshoring : A systematic literature review. European Research on Management and Business Economics, 30(1), 1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.iedeen.2023.100234Кондратьев, В. Б., Попов, В. В., Кедрова, Г. В. (2022). Промышленная политика в условиях индустрии 4.0. Мировая экономика и международные отношения, 3(66), 73–80. doi: 10.20542/0131-2227-2022-66-3-73-80Bobkov, V. (2022). The Union State: integration model and development strategy. Belaruskaya dumka : shtomesyachny` gramadska-palitychny i navukova-papulyarny chasopis, 6, 62–68. (In Russ.).Кохно, П. (2019). Белорусско-российские интеграционные процессы. Общество и экономика, 3, 173–182. doi: 10.31857/s020736760004299-7Bodrunov, S. D. (2015). Russia’s industrial policy: lessons of the past, characteristics of the present, design of the future. Scientific works of the Free economic society of Russia, 6(195), 157–178. (In Russ.).Лепеш, Г. В. (2022). Механизмы совершенствования региональной промышленной политики Российской Федерации и Республики Беларусь в контексте расширения сетевого промышленного взаимодействия. Технико-технологические проблемы сервиса, 1(59), 3–12.Bonvillian, W. (2022). Industrial Innovation Policy in the United States. Annals of Science and Technology Policy, 6, 315–411. doi: 10.1561/110.00000026Пак, А. Ю., Андронова, И. В. (2024). Единая промышленная политика Союзного государства Белоруссии и России как инструмент обеспечения экономической безопасности. Проблемы рыночной экономики, 1, 98–111. doi: 10.33051/2500-2325-2024-1-98-111Bulfone, F. (2022). Industrial policy and comparative political economy : A literature review and research agenda. Competition and Change, 27(1), 22–43.Побываев, А. (2017). Неоиндустриализация как инструмент встраивания в глобальные цепочки стоимости российских и белорусских предприятий. Мир новой экономики, 4, 78–87.Carlsson, B. (2016). Industrial Dynamics: A Review of the Literature 1990–2009. Industry and Innovation, 23, 1–62. doi: 10.1080/13662716.2015.1120658Полтерович, В. М. (2023). Догоняющее развитие в условиях санкций: стратегия позитивного сотрудничества. Terra Economicus, 21(3), 6–16. doi: 10.18522/2073-6606-2023-21-3-6-16Cen, X., Fos, V., & Jiang, W. (2023, April 14). How Do U.S. Firms Withstand Foreign Industrial Policies? doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4418407Полтерович, В. М. (2014). Промышленная политика: рецепты или институты? Журнал Новой экономической ассоциации, 2(22), 190–195.Chandran, N., & Brahmachari, S. (2018). Policy as a Driver of Economic Growth: Historical Evidence from the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry. Current Science, 114(6), 1181–1193. doi: 10.18520/cs/v114/i06/1181-1193Приходько, А. (2024). Сближение макроэкономической политики России и Белоруссии: союзное строительство 2021–2023 годов. Россия и новые государства Евразии, I(LXII), 78–98. doi: 10.20542/2073-4786-2024-1-78-98Chang, H.-J., & Andreoni, A. (2020). Industrial Policy in the 21<sup>st</sup> Century. Development and Change, 51, 324–351. doi: 10.1111/dech.12570Романова, О. А., Пономарева, А. О. (2020). Промышленная политика: новые реалии, проблемы формирования и реализации. Экономические и социальные перемены: факты, тенденции, прогноз, 13(2), 25–40. doi: 10.15838/esc.2020.2.68.2Cherif, R., Hasanov, F., & Spatafora, N. (2022). Industrial Policy for Growth and Diversification. A Conceptual Framework. International Monetary Fund. African Department (Series). https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/Publications/DP/2022/English/IPGDCFEA.ashxСуздальцев, А. И. (2021). Республика Беларусь: Эволюция политики балансирования между Союзным государством Белоруссии и России и Евразийским экономическим союзом. Актуальные проблемы Европы, 109(1), 193–232. doi: 10.31249/ape/2021.01.09Chu, W. W. (2017). Industry policy with Chinese characteristics: a multi-layered model. China Economic Journal, 10(3), 305–318. doi: 10.1080/17538963.2017.1368903Татаркин, А. И., Романова, О. А. (2007). Промышленная политика и механизм ее реализации: системный подход. Экономика региона, 3(3), 19–31.Conley, T., & van Acker, L. (2011). Whatever Happened to Industry Policy in Australia? Australian Journal of Political Science, 46, 503–517. doi: 10.1080/10361146.2011.596522.Татаркин, А. И. (2008). Промышленная политика как основа системной модернизации экономики России. Вестник Челябинского государственного университета, 19, 5–17.Crespi, F. et al. (2021). European Technological Sovereignty: An Emerging Framework for Policy Strategy. Inter Economics, 56, 348–354. doi: 10.1007/s10272-021-1013-6Шурубович, А. (2016). Промышленная политика евразийских интеграционных проектов. Россия и новые государства Евразии, 2, 9–24.Criscuolo, C. et al. (2022). An industrial policy framework for OECD countries: Old debates, new perspectives. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, 127. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/0002217c-enAiginger, K. (2007). Industrial Policy: A Dying Breed or а Re-emerging Phoenix. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 7(3-4), 297–323. doi: 10.1007/s10842-007-0025-7Diegues, A. C., Roselino, J. E., Ferreira, M. J. B., & de Castro Garcia, R. (2023). The renewal of the debate on industrial policy: limitations and suggestion for a normative typology based on the dialogue between neo-schumpeterians and developmentalists. Revista de Economia Contemporânea (Journal of Contemporary Economics), 27, 1–32. doi: 10.1590/198055272723Bilbao Ubillos, J., Camino-Beldarrain, V., Intxaurburu-Clemente, G., & Velasco Balmaseda, E. (2024). Industry 4.0, servitization, and reshoring: A systematic literature review. European Research on Management and Business Economics, 30(1), 1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.iedeen.2023.100234DiPippo, G., Mazzocco, I., Kennedy, S., & Goodman, M. P. (2022). Red Ink: estimating Chinese industrial policy spending in comparative perspective. Center for Strategic and International Studies*. https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/publication/220523_DiPippo_Red_Ink.pdf?VersionId=LH8ILLKWz4o.bjrwNS7csuX_C04FyEreBailey, D., Pitelis, C., & Tomlinson, P. (2023). Place-based industrial and regional strategy – levelling the playing field. Regional Studies, 57, 1–7. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2023.2168260Dolfsma, W., & Mamica, L. (2020). Industrial Policy – An Institutional Economic Framework for Assessment. Journal of Economic Issues, 54, 349–355. doi: 10.1080/00213624.2020.1743143Barwick, P. J., Kalouptsidi, M., & Zahur, N. B. (2019, July 9). China’s Industrial Policy: an Empirical Evaluation. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3417181Farrand, B., & Carrapico, H. (2022). Digital sovereignty and taking back control: from regulatory capitalism to regulatory mercantilism in EU cybersecurity. European Security, 31(3), 435–453. doi: 10.1080/09662839.2022.2102896Barzotto, M., Corradini, C., Fai, F., Labory, S., & Tomlinson, P. (2020). Smart specialisation, Industry 4.0 and lagging regions: some directions for policy. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 7, 318–332. doi: 10.1080/21681376.2020.1803124Fenna, A. (2016). Revisiting trade and industry policy. Australian Journal of Political Science, 51, 1–11. doi: 10.1080/10361146.2016.1239566Bonvillian, W. (2022). Industrial Innovation Policy in the United States. Annals of Science and Technology Policy, 6, 315–411. doi: 10.1561/110.00000026Glazyev, S. Yu. (2019). A methodology for accelerated economic growth: achieving the economic breakthrough goal set by the President of Russia. Scientific works of the Free economic society of Russia, 4(218), 124–132. (In Russ.).Bulfone, F. (2022). Industrial policy and comparative political economy: A literature review and research agenda. Competition and Change, 27(1), 22–43.Harrison, A., Martin, L., & Nataraj, S. (2017). Green Industrial Policy in Emerging Markets. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 9, 253–274. doi: 10.1146/annurev-resource-100516-053445Carlsson, B. (2016). Industrial Dynamics: A Review of the Literature 1990–2009. Industry and Innovation, 23, 1–62. do: 10.1080/13662716.2015.1120658Herrera, A., Chen, G., & Lugauer, S. (2022). Policy and Misallocation Evidence from Chinese Firm-Level Data. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4002232Chang, H.-J., & Andreoni, A. (2020). Industrial Policy in the 21<sup>st</sup> Century. Development and Change, 51, 324–351. doi: 10.1111/dech.12570Hervas-Oliver, J. L., Estelles-Miguel, S., Peris-Ortiz, M., & Belso-Martinez, J. (2022). Does regional innovation policy really work for Industry 4.0? Evidence for industrial districts. European Planning Studies, 31, 1–19. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2022.2135368Cen, X., Fos, V., & Jiang, W. (2023, April 14). How Do U.S. Firms Withstand Foreign Industrial Policies? doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4418407Hidalgo, C. A. (2021). Economic complexity theory and applications. Nature Physics, 3(2), 92–113.Chandran, N., & Brahmachari, S. (2018). Policy as a Driver of Economic Growth: Historical Evidence from the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry. Current Science, 114(6), 1181–1193. doi: 10.18520/cs/v114/i06/1181-1193Juhasz, R., & Steinwender, C. (2024). Industrial Policy and the Great Divergence. Annual Review of Economics, 16, Submitted. doi: 10.1146/annurev-economics-091523-044259Cherif, R., Hasanov, F., & Spatafora, N. (2022). Industrial Policy for Growth and Diversification. A Conceptual Framework. International Monetary Fund. African Department (Series). https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/Publications/DP/2022/English/IPGDCFEA.ashxJuhász, R., Lane, N., Oehlsen, E., & Pérez, V. C. (2022, November 20). The Who, What, When, and How of Industrial Policy: A Text-Based Approach. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4198209Chu, W. W. (2017). Industry policy with Chinese characteristics: a multi-layered model. China Economic Journal, 10(3), 305–318. doi: 10.1080/17538963.2017.1368903Juhász, R., Lane, N., & Rodrik, D. (2024). The New Economics of Industrial Policy. Annual Review of Economics, 6. doi: 10.1146/annurev-economics-081023-024638Conley, T., & van Acker, L. (2011). Whatever Happened to Industry Policy in Australia? Australian Journal of Political Science, 46, 503–517. doi: 10.1080/10361146.2011.596522.Kamalyan, A., Tsybulnik, L., & Pak, A. (2022). Industrial Policy of Eurasian Economic Union. World Eсonomy and International Relations, 66(11), 28–40. (In Russ.). doi: 10.20542/0131-2227-2022-66-11-28-40Crespi, F. et al. (2021). European Technological Sovereignty: An Emerging Framework for Policy Strategy. Inter Economics, 56, 348–354. doi: 10.1007/s10272-021-1013-6Kelsey, N. (2018). Industry type and environmental policy: Industry characteristics shape the potential for policymaking success in energy and the environment. Business and Politics, 20, 1–28. doi: 10.1017/bap.2018.19Criscuolo, C. et al. (2022). An industrial policy framework for OECD countries: Old debates, new perspectives. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, 127. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/0002217c-enKokhno, P. (2019). Оn the present-day Belarusian-Russian integration processes. Society and Economy, 3, 173–182. (In Russ.). doi: 10.31857/s020736760004299-7Diegues, A. C., Roselino, J. E., Ferreira, M. J. B., & de Castro Garcia, R. (2023). The renewal of the debate on industrial policy: limitations and suggestion for a normative typology based on the dialogue between neo-schumpeterians and developmentalists. Revista de Economia Contemporânea (Journal of Contemporary Economics), 27, 1–32. doi: 10.1590/198055272723Kondratev, V., Popov, V., & Kedrova, G. (2022). Industrial Policy Priorities under Industry 4.0. World Eсonomy and International Relations, 66(3), 73–80. (In Russ.). doi: 10.20542/0131-2227-2022-66-3-73-80DiPippo, G., Mazzocco, I., Kennedy, S., & Goodman, M. P. (2022). Red Ink: estimating Chinese industrial policy spending in comparative perspective. Center for Strategic and International Studies*.Lane, N. (2020). The New Empirics of Industrial Policy. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 20, 209–234. doi: 10.1007/s10842-019-00323-2Dolfsma, W., & Mamica, L. (2020). Industrial Policy – An Institutional Economic Framework for Assessment. Journal of Economic Issues, 54, 349–355. doi: 10.1080/00213624.2020.1743143Lane, N. (2022, November 1). Manufacturing Revolutions: Industrial Policy and Industrialization in South Korea. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3890311Farrand, B., & Carrapico, H. (2022). Digital sovereignty and taking back control: from regulatory capitalism to regulatory mercantilism in EU cybersecurity. European Security, 31(3), 435–453. doi: 10.1080/09662839.2022.2102896Lashkaripour, A., & Lugovskyy, V. (2022, February 1). Profits, Scale Economies, and the Gains from Trade and Industrial Policy. CAEPR Working Paper, 2017-004. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2954731Fenna, A. (2016). Revisiting trade and industry policy. Australian Journal of Political Science, 51, 1–11. doi: 10.1080/10361146.2016.1239566Lepesh, G. V. (2022). Mechanisms for improving the regional industrial policy of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus in the context of expanding industrial networking. Tekhniko-tekhnologicheskie Problemy Servisa, 1(59), 3–12. (In Russ.).Harrison, A., Martin, L., & Nataraj, S. (2017). Green Industrial Policy in Emerging Markets. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 9, 253–274. doi: 10.1146/annurev-resource-100516-053445Liu, X., Megginson, W., & Xia, J. (2022). Industrial Policy and Asset Prices: Evidence from the Made in China 2025 Policy. Journal of Banking & Finance, 142. doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2022.106554Hervas-Oliver, J. L., Estelles-Miguel, S., Peris-Ortiz, M., & Belso-Martinez, J. (2022). Does regional innovation policy really work for Industry 4.0? Evidence for industrial districts. European Planning Studies, 31, 1–19. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2022.2135368Mcgovern, T. (2011). The decline of the British tyre industry: An evaluation of the policies of the Tyre Industry Sector Working Party. Business History, 53, 600–616. doi: 10.1080/00076791.2011.578128Herrera, A., Chen, G., & Lugauer, S. (2022). Policy and Misallocation Evidence from Chinese Firm-Level Data. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4002232McNamara, K. R. (2023). Transforming Europe? The EU’s industrial policy and geopolitical turn. Journal of European Public Policy, 1–26. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2023.2230247Hidalgo, C. A. (2021). Economic complexity theory and applications. Nature Physics, 3(2), 92–113.Mingo, S., & Khanna, T. (2014). Industrial policy and the creation of new industries: Evidence from Brazil's bioethanol industry. Industrial and Corporate Change, 23, 1229–1260. doi: 10.1093/icc/dtt039Juhasz, R., & Steinwender, C. (2024). Industrial Policy and the Great Divergence. Annual Review of Economics, 16, Submitted. doi: 10.1146/annurev-economics-091523-044259Molica, F. (2024). Reassessing Cohesion Policy Through the Lens of the New EU Industrial Policy. JCMS Journal of Common Market Studies, 1–18. doi: 10.1111/jcms.13616Juhász, R., Lane, N., Oehlsen, E., & Pérez, V. C. (2022, November 20). The Who, What, When, and How of Industrial Policy: A Text-Based Approach. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4198209Nathan, M., & Overman, H. (2013). Agglomeration, clusters, and industrial policy. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 29, 383–404. doi: 10.1093/oxrep/grt019Juhász, R., Lane, N., & Rodrik, D. (2024). The New Economics of Industrial Policy. Annual Review of Economics, 6. doi: 10.1146/annurev-economics-081023-024638Naudé, W. (2010). New Challenges for Industrial Policy. Working Paper No. 2010/107.Lane, N. (2022, November 1). Manufacturing Revolutions: Industrial Policy and Industrialization in South Korea. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3890311Nem Singh, J. (2023). The advance of the state and the renewal of industrial policy in the age of strategic competition. Third World Quarterly, 44, 1–19. doi: 10.1080/01436597.2023.2217766Lashkaripour, A., & Lugovskyy, V. (2022, February 1). Profits, Scale Economies, and the Gains from Trade and Industrial Policy. CAEPR Working Paper, 2017-004. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2954731Pak, A. Yu., & Andronova, I. V. (2024). The common industrial policy of the Union State of Belarus and Russia as an economic security tool. Market Economy Problems, 1, 98–111. (In Russ.). doi: 10.33051/2500-2325-2024-1-98-111Kelsey, N. (2018). Industry type and environmental policy: Industry characteristics shape the potential for policymaking success in energy and the environment. Business and Politics, 20, 1–28. doi: 10.1017/bap.2018.19Pereira, R., & dos Santos, N. (2023). Neoindustrialization – Reflections on a New Paradigmatic Approach for the Industry : A Scoping Review on Industry 5.0. Logistics, 7. doi: 10.3390/logistics7030043Lane, N. (2020). The New Empirics of Industrial Policy. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 20, 209–234. doi: 10.1007/s10842-019-00323-2Pichler, M., Krenmayr, N., Schneider, E., & Brand. U. (2021). EU industrial policy: Between modernization and transformation of the automotive industry. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 38, 140–152. doi: 10.1016/j.eist.2020.12.002Liu, X., Megginson, W., & Xia, J. (2022). Industrial Policy and Asset Prices: Evidence from the Made in China 2025 Policy. Journal of Banking & Finance, 142. doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2022.106554Pobyvaev, S. A. (2017). Non-Industrialization as an Instrument of Integration into Global Value Chains of Russian and Belarusian Enterprises. The World of New Economy, 4, 78–87. (In Russ.).Mcgovern, T. (2011). The decline of the British tyre industry: An evaluation of the policies of the Tyre Industry Sector Working Party. Business History, 53, 600–616. doi: 10.1080/00076791.2011.578128Pohle, J., & Thiel, T. (2020). Digital sovereignty. Internet Policy Review, 9(4), 1–19. doi: 10.14763/2020.4.1532Mingo, S., & Khanna, T. (2014). Industrial policy and the creation of new industries: Evidence from Brazil's bioethanol industry. Industrial and Corporate Change, 23, 1229–1260. doi: 10.1093/icc/dtt039Polterovich, V. M. (2014). Industrial policy: recipes or institutions? Journal of the New Economic Association, 2(22), 190–195. (In Russ.).Molica, F. (2024). Reassessing Cohesion Policy Through the Lens of the New EU Industrial Policy. JCMS Journal of Common Market Studies, 1–18. doi: 10.1111/jcms.13616Polterovich, V. M. (2023). Catching-up development under sanctions: The strategy of positive collaboration. Terra Economicus, 21(3), 6–16. (In Russ.). doi: 10.18522/2073-6606-2023-21-3-6-16McNamara, K. R. (2023). Transforming Europe? The EU’s industrial policy and geopolitical turn. Journal of European Public Policy, 1–26. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2023.2230247Prikhodko, A. (2024). The Convergence of Macroeconomic Policies of Russia and Belarus: Union Building in 2021–2023. Russia and New States of Eurasia, I(LXII), 78–98. (In Russ.). doi: 10.20542/2073-4786-2024-1-78-98Nathan, M., & Overman, H. (2013). Agglomeration, clusters, and industrial policy. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 29, 383–404. doi: 10.1093/oxrep/grt019Qiao, J., Yang, S., Chen, Z., Zhuang, Z., & Chen, L. (2022). A quantitative study of policy-driven changes and forecasts in the development of the hydrogen transportation industry. Energy Reports, 8, 1218–1225. doi: 10.1016/j.egyr.2022.02.057Naudé, W. (2010). New Challenges for Industrial Policy. Working Paper No. 2010/107.Rodrik, D. (2004). Industrial Policy for the Twenty-First Century. CEPR Discussion Paper Series. doi: 10.2139/SSRN.617544Nem Singh, J. (2023). The advance of the state and the renewal of industrial policy in the age of strategic competition. Third World Quarterly, 44, 1–19. doi: 10.1080/01436597.2023.2217766Romanova, O. A., & Ponomareva, A. O. (2020). Industrial policy: new realities, formation and implementation issues. Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast, 13(2), 25–40. (In Russ.). doi: 10.15838/esc.2020.2.68.2Pereira, R., & dos Santos, N. (2023). Neoindustrialization – Reflections on a New Paradigmatic Approach for the Industry : A Scoping Review on Industry 5.0. Logistics, 7. doi: 10.3390/logistics7030043Sharmelly, R., & Ray, P. (2018). Influence of policies in capability evolution and industry structure: Lessons from the Indian automotive industry and implications for other developing countries. World Review of Entrepreneurship Management and Sustainable Development, 14, 1–21. doi: 10.1504/WREMSD.2018.089070Pichler, M., Krenmayr, N., Schneider, E., & Brand. U. (2021). EU industrial policy: Between modernization and transformation of the automotive industry. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 38, 140–152. doi: 10.1016/j.eist.2020.12.002Shurubovich, A. (2016). Industrial policy of Eurasian integration projects. Rossiya i novy`e gosudarstva Evrazii, 2, 9–24. (In Russ.).Pohle, J., & Thiel, T. (2020). Digital sovereignty. Internet Policy Review, 9(4), 1–19. doi: 10.14763/2020.4.1532Simachev, Y., Fedyunina, A., & Kuzyk, M. (2022). Russian industrial policy in the context of global production system transformation and severe constraints. Voprosy Economiki, 6, 5–25. doi: 10.32609/0042-8736-2022-6-5-25Qiao, J., Yang, S., Chen, Z., Zhuang, Z., & Chen, L. (2022). A quantitative study of policy-driven changes and forecasts in the development of the hydrogen transportation industry. Energy Reports, 8, 1218–1225. doi: 10.1016/j.egyr.2022.02.057Souza Júnior, A., Lisboa, A., Aguiar, L., Itikawa, M., Silva, O., & Santiago, S. (2022). The RD&I policy in Manaus Free Trade Zone: Opportunities and Challenges for the Implementation of the Industry 4.0. European Journal of Business and Management Research, 7, 229–235. doi: 10.24018/ejbmr.2022.7.1.1280Rodrik, D. (2004). Industrial Policy for the Twenty-First Century. CEPR Discussion Paper Series. doi: 10.2139/SSRN.617544Sunley, P., Harris, J., Pike, A., Harris, R., Martin, R., & Evenhuis, E. (2022). Industrial policies, strategy and the UK’s Levelling Up agenda. Local Economy: The Journal of the Local Economy Policy Unit, 37(5), 403–418. doi: 10.1177/02690942221149007Simachev, Y., Fedyunina, A., & Kuzyk, M. (2022). Russian industrial policy in the context of global production system transformation and severe constraints. Voprosy Economiki, 6, 5–25. doi: 10.32609/0042-8736-2022-6-5-25Suzdaltsev, A. (2021). The Republic of Belarus: the evolution of the policy of balancing between Union state of Belarus and Russia and Eurasian economic union. Urgent Problems of Europe, 109(1), 193–232. (In Russ.). doi: 10.31249/ape/2021.01.09Sharmelly, R., & Ray, P. (2018). Influence of policies in capability evolution and industry structure: Lessons from the Indian automotive industry and implications for other developing countries. World Review of Entrepreneurship Management and Sustainable Development, 14, 1–21. doi: 10.1504/WREMSD.2018.089070Tatarkin, A. I. (2008). Industrial policy as the basis for systemic modernization of the Russian economy. Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University, 19, 5–17. (In Russ.).Souza Júnior, A., Lisboa, A., Aguiar, L., Itikawa, M., Silva, O., & Santiago, S. (2022). The RD&I policy in Manaus Free Trade Zone: Opportunities and Challenges for the Implementation of the Industry 4.0. European Journal of Business and Management Research, 7, 229–235. doi: 10.24018/ejbmr.2022.7.1.1280Tatarkin, A. I., & Romanova, O. A. (2007). Industrial policy and mechanism of its implementation: systemic approach. Economy of Region, 3(3), 19–31. (In Russ.).Sunley, P., Harris, J., Pike, A., Harris, R., Martin, R., & Evenhuis, E. (2022). Industrial policies, strategy and the UK’s Levelling Up agenda. Local Economy: The Journal of the Local Economy Policy Unit, 37(5), 403–418. doi: 10.1177/02690942221149007Weiss, J. (2017). Implementing industrial policy: How to choose? Oxford Development Studies, 46, 1–12. doi: 10.1080/13600818.2017.1313399Weiss, J. (2017). Implementing industrial policy: How to choose? Oxford Development Studies, 46, 1–12. doi: 10.1080/13600818.2017.1313399Zemskov, V. V. (2023). Integration processes as a factor in ensuring the economic security of the union state. The Eurasian Scientific Journal, 15(s1). (In Russ.).* Признана нежелательной организацией в РФ с 01.07.2024 / Recognized as an undesirable organization in the Russian Federation as of 01.07.2024.* Признана нежелательной организацией в РФ с 01.07.2024 / Recognized as an undesirable organization in the Russian Federation as of 01.07.2024.
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.