voprecotestВопросы экономикиVoprosy Ekonomiki0042-8736Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP10.32609/0042-8736-2017-2-97-108voprecotest-279Research ArticleЭКОНОМИКА ИННОВАЦИЙECONOMICS OF INNOVATIONГосударственная политика и провалы национальной инновационной системыPublic policy and national innovation system failuresГоличенкоО. Г.GolichenkoO.

д. э. н., проф., главный научный сотрудник ЦЭМИ РАН; проф. кафедры экономики интеллектуальной собственности Московского физико-технического института (технического университета) (Москва)

golichenko@rambler.ruЦЭМИ РАН; Московский физико-технический институт (технический университет)РоссияCentral Economics and Mathematics Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences; Moscow Institute of Physics and TechnologyRussian Federation2017200220170297108Copyright © Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP, 20172017Voprosy Ekonomiki, NPVoprosy Ekonomiki, NPhttps://www.vopreco.ru/jour/about/submissions#copyrightNoticehttps://www.vopreco.ru/jour/article/view/279

В работе предлагается связывать направления государственной политики развития национальной инновационной системы с факторами ее провалов. Детально анализируется политика формирования мотивационной основы акторов системы, в частности путем регулирования технологического спилловера. Исследуются проблемы поддержания баланса между компенсациейгосударством инновационных рисков и мотивированием акторов принимать их на себя. Рассматриваются возможности использования в политике структурного фактора, обусловленного особенностями инновационной деятельности на разных уровнях системы и асимметрией информации.

In the study, the general dimensions of public policy in national innovation systems are associated with the factors of its failures. The perspectives of policy facilitating the shape of actors’ motivation are analyzed in detail. The paper studies the problems of technology spillover regulation and of keeping a balance between innovation risk compensation and making actors willing to take innovation risks. The paper also considers the structural factor related to the peculiarity of innovation activity on various mesolevels of the system and to information asymmetries. The opportunities of the structural factor to enhance innovation performance are investigated.

технологический спилловеринновационная политикаtechnology spilloverinnovation policyReferencesГоличенко О. Г. (2011). Основные факторы развития национальной инновационной системы: уроки для России. М.: НаукаGolichenko O. G. (2011). Main factors of national innovation system development: Lessons for Russia. Moscow: Nauka. (In Russian).Голиченко О. (2014). Национальная инновационная система: от концепции к методологии исследования // Вопросы экономики. № 7. С. 61-68Golichenko O. (2014). National innovation systems: From conception toward the methodology of analysis. Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 7, pp. 61—68. (In Russian).Голиченко О. Г., Самоволева С. А. (2014). Государственная политика в национальной инновационной системе: теория и практика // Инновации. № 10. С. 83-94Golichenko O. G., Samovoleva S. A. (2014). Public policy in the national innovation system: theory and practice. Innovatsii, No. 10, pp. 83—94. (In Russian).Aboody D., Lev B. (2000). Information asymmetry, R&D, and insider gains. Journal of Finance, Vol. 55, No. 6, pp. 2747-2766.Aboody D., Lev B. (2000). Information asymmetry, R&D, and insider gains. Journal of Finance, Vol. 55, No. 6, pp. 2747-2766.Aghion P., Blundell R., Griffith R., Howitt P., Prantl S. (2009). The Effects of Entry on Incumbent Innovation and Productivity. Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 91, No. 1, pp. 20-32.Aghion P., Blundell R., Griffith R., Howitt P., Prantl S. (2009). The Effects of Entry on Incumbent Innovation and Productivity. Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 91, No. 1, pp. 20-32.Arrow K. (1962). The economic implications of learning by doing. Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 155-173.Arrow K. (1962). The economic implications of learning by doing. Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 155-173.Buchanan J., Stubblebine Wm. C. (1962). Externality. Economica, Vol. 29, No. 116, pp. 371-384.Buchanan J., Stubblebine Wm. C. (1962). Externality. Economica, Vol. 29, No. 116, pp. 371-384.Carlsson B., Jacobsson S. (1997). In search оf useful public policies: key lessons and issues for policy makers. In: B. Carlsson (ed.). Technological systems and industrial dynamics. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 299-315.Carlsson B., Jacobsson S. (1997). In search оf useful public policies: key lessons and issues for policy makers. In: B. Carlsson (ed.). Technological systems and industrial dynamics. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 299-315.Dobrinsky P. (2009). The paradigm of knowledge-oriented industrial policy. Journal of Industry Competition and Trade, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 273-305.Dobrinsky P. (2009). The paradigm of knowledge-oriented industrial policy. Journal of Industry Competition and Trade, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 273-305.Jaumotte F., Pain N. (2005). Innovation in the business sector. OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 459.Jaumotte F., Pain N. (2005). Innovation in the business sector. OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 459.Johnson B., Gregersen B. (1994). Systems of innovation and economic integration. Journal of Industry Studies, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 1-18.Johnson B., Gregersen B. (1994). Systems of innovation and economic integration. Journal of Industry Studies, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 1-18.Malerba F., Orsenigo L. (1997). Technological regimes and sectoral patterns of innovative activities. Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 83-117.Malerba F., Orsenigo L. (1997). Technological regimes and sectoral patterns of innovative activities. Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 83-117.Moreau F. (2004). The role of the state in evolutionary economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 28, No. 6, pp. 847-874.Moreau F. (2004). The role of the state in evolutionary economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 28, No. 6, pp. 847-874.Mytelka L., Smith K. (2002). Policy learning and innovation theory: an interactive and co-evolving process. Research Policy, Vol. 31, No. 8-9, pp. 1467-1479.Mytelka L., Smith K. (2002). Policy learning and innovation theory: an interactive and co-evolving process. Research Policy, Vol. 31, No. 8-9, pp. 1467-1479.OECD (2005). Governance of innovation system. Paris: OECD Publ.OECD (2005). Governance of innovation system. Paris: OECD Publ.OECD (2008). Competition assessment toolkit. Paris: OECD Publ.OECD (2008). Competition assessment toolkit. Paris: OECD Publ.OECD (2011). Financing high-growth firms: The role of angel investors, Paris: OECD Publ.OECD (2011). Financing high-growth firms: The role of angel investors, Paris: OECD Publ.ОECD (2015). The Innovation Imperative: Contributing to productivity, growth and well-being. Paris: OECD Publ.ОECD (2015). The Innovation Imperative: Contributing to productivity, growth and well-being. Paris: OECD Publ.Pack H., Saggi, K. (2006). Is there a case for industrial policy? A critical survey. World Bank Research Observer, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 267-297.Pack H., Saggi, K. (2006). Is there a case for industrial policy? A critical survey. World Bank Research Observer, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 267-297.Porter M. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. New York: The Free Press.Porter M. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. New York: The Free Press.Sharif N. (2006). Emergence and development of the national innovation systems concept. Research Policy, Vol. 35, No. 5, pp. 745-766.Sharif N. (2006). Emergence and development of the national innovation systems concept. Research Policy, Vol. 35, No. 5, pp. 745-766.Smith K. (1997). Economic infrastructures and innovation systems. In: C. Edquist (ed.). Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions and organisations. London and Washington, DC: Pinter, pp. 86-106.Smith K. (1997). Economic infrastructures and innovation systems. In: C. Edquist (ed.). Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions and organisations. London and Washington, DC: Pinter, pp. 86-106.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.