voprecotestВопросы экономикиVoprosy Ekonomiki0042-8736Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP10.32609/0042-8736-2017-8-24-41voprecotest-31Research ArticleИННОВАЦИОННЫЙ ПОТЕНЦИАЛ И ЭКОНОМИЧЕСКИЙ РОСТINNOVATION POTENTIAL AND ECONOMIC GROWTHАнализ драйверов и ограничений развития России на основе информации Глобального инновационного индексаDrivers and limitations of Russia’s development based on the evidence provided by the Global Innovation IndexВласоваВ. В.VlasovaV.

м.  н.  с. Института статистических исследований и экономики знаний Национального исследовательского университета «Высшая школа экономики» (ИСИЭЗ НИУ ВШЭ, Москва)

vvvlasova@hse.ruКузнецоваТ. Е.KuznetsovaT.

к.  э.  н., директор Центра научно-технической и инновационной политики ИСИЭЗ НИУ ВШЭ

tkuznetzova@hse.ruРудьВ. А.RoudV.

с.  н.  с. Лаборатории экономики инноваций ИСИЭЗ НИУ ВШЭ

vroud@hse.ruНациональный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики»РоссияInstitute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge, National Research University Higher School of EconomicsRussian Federation201720082017082441Copyright © Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP, 20172017Voprosy Ekonomiki, NPVoprosy Ekonomiki, NPhttps://www.vopreco.ru/jour/about/submissions#copyrightNoticehttps://www.vopreco.ru/jour/article/view/31

В статье исследуются возможности комплексных международных индексов для выявления, оценки и сопоставительного анализа сильных и слабых сторон прогресса в научно-технологической и инновационной сфере разных стран, включая Россию. На примере Глобального инновационного индекса за 2013—2016 гг., объединяющего 82 индикатора для 120 стран ежегодно, проведен межстрановой анализ стратегий инновационного развития, учитывающий позиции стран в рейтинге с коррекцией на уровень подушевого дохода. Сопоставительный анализ стран — участников рейтинга демонстрирует, что относительно высокие позиции России обеспечены прежде всего индикаторами, характеризующими различные формы затрат на научную и инновационную деятельность, уровень человеческого капитала и т.  п. при существенном отставании по всем измерениям эффективности использования указанных ресурсов. По выявленной совокупности сильных и слабых сторон Россия существенно отличается от большинства стран в рейтинге — как абсолютных лидеров, так и наиболее активно развивающихся.

The article explores the potential of the complex international indices for identifying, assessing and comparing the strengths and weaknesses of prog- ress in the science, technology and innovation complex of Russia. Using the Global Innovation Index data for 2013-2016 (82 indicators and more than120 countries annually), a cross-country analysis of comparative advantages is performed. Russia demonstrates positive dynamics in terms of the aggregate rankings, however, these relatively high positions are provided by the resource-related dimensions, e.g. various forms of R&D and innovation expenditure, share of university graduates in the total population, etc. However, the country is lagging behind along all the measures of the effectiveness of the utilization of these resources. According to the identified set of strengths and weaknesses, Russia differs significantly from both absolute leaders of the rating and the most actively developing countries. The emphasis on the resource elements reflects the instability of competitive advantages and the prevailing development model.

Глобальный инновационный индекснациональная инновационная системанаукатехнологииинновациинаучная политикаинновационная политикаэкономическое развитиеGlobal Innovation Indexnational innovation systemsciencetechnologyinnovationresearch policyinnovation policyeconomic developmentReferencesAbson D. J., Dougill A. J., Stringer L. C. (2012). Using principal component analysis for information-rich socio-ecological vulnerability mapping in Southern Africa. Applied Geography, Vol. 35, No. 1-2, pp. 515-524.Abson D. J., Dougill A. J., Stringer L. C. (2012). Using principal component analysis for information-rich socio-ecological vulnerability mapping in Southern Africa. Applied Geography, Vol. 35, No. 1-2, pp. 515-524.Aghion P., Howitt P. (1992). A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica, Vol. 60, No. 2, pp. 323-351.Aghion P., Howitt P. (1992). A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica, Vol. 60, No. 2, pp. 323-351.Archibugi D., Coco A. (2005). Measuring technological capabilities at the country level: A survey and a menu for choice. Research Policy, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 175-194.Archibugi D., Coco A. (2005). Measuring technological capabilities at the country level: A survey and a menu for choice. Research Policy, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 175-194.Carayannis E. G., Provance M. (2008). Measuring firm innovativeness: Towards a composite innovation index built on firm innovative posture, propensity and performance attributes. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 90-107.Carayannis E. G., Provance M. (2008). Measuring firm innovativeness: Towards a composite innovation index built on firm innovative posture, propensity and performance attributes. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 90-107.EC (2001). European innovation scoreboard 2001. Brussels: European Commission. EC (2003). Third European report on science and technology indicators. Towards a Knowledge-based Economy. Brussels: European Commission.EC (2001). European innovation scoreboard 2001. Brussels: European Commission. EC (2003). Third European report on science and technology indicators. Towards a Knowledge-based Economy. Brussels: European Commission.EC (2010). Europe 2020: A European strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Brussels: European Commission.EC (2010). Europe 2020: A European strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Brussels: European Commission.Freudenberg M. (2003). Composite indicators of country performance: A critical assessment. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, No. 2003/16.Freudenberg M. (2003). Composite indicators of country performance: A critical assessment. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, No. 2003/16.GII (2016). The Global Innovation Index 2016: Winning with global innovation. Ithaca, Fontainebleau, and Geneva: Cornell University, INSEAD, and WIPO.GII (2016). The Global Innovation Index 2016: Winning with global innovation. Ithaca, Fontainebleau, and Geneva: Cornell University, INSEAD, and WIPO.Grossman G. M., Helpman E. (1993). Innovation and growth in the global economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Grossman G. M., Helpman E. (1993). Innovation and growth in the global economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Grupp H., Maital S. (2001). Managing new product development and innovation: A microeconomic toolbox. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Grupp H., Maital S. (2001). Managing new product development and innovation: A microeconomic toolbox. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Grupp H., Mogee M. E. (2004). Indicators for national science and technology policy: how robust are composite indicators? Research Policy, Vol. 33, No. 9, pp. 1373-1384.Grupp H., Mogee M. E. (2004). Indicators for national science and technology policy: how robust are composite indicators? Research Policy, Vol. 33, No. 9, pp. 1373-1384.Grupp H., Schubert T. (2010). Review and new evidence on composite innovation indicators for evaluating national performance. Research Policy, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 67-78.Grupp H., Schubert T. (2010). Review and new evidence on composite innovation indicators for evaluating national performance. Research Policy, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 67-78.Gokhberg L., Polyakova V. (2014). Innovative activities and skills. In: The Global Innovation Index 2014: The human factor in innovation. Geneva, Fontainebleau, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, INSEAD, and WIPO, pp. 93-99.Gokhberg L., Polyakova V. (2014). Innovative activities and skills. In: The Global Innovation Index 2014: The human factor in innovation. Geneva, Fontainebleau, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, INSEAD, and WIPO, pp. 93-99.Gokhberg L., Roud V. (2012). The Russian Federation: A new innovation policy for sustainable growth. In: The Global Innovation Index 2012: Stronger innovation linkages for global growth. Fontainebleau: INSEAD, WIPO, pp. 121-131.Gokhberg L., Roud V. (2012). The Russian Federation: A new innovation policy for sustainable growth. In: The Global Innovation Index 2012: Stronger innovation linkages for global growth. Fontainebleau: INSEAD, WIPO, pp. 121-131.Gokhberg L., Roud V. (2016). How to design a national innovation system in a time of global innovation networks: A Russian perspective. In: The Global Innovation Index 2016. Winning with Global Innovation. Geneva, Fontainebleau, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, INSEAD, and WIPO, Ch. 13, pp. 159-166.Gokhberg L., Roud V. (2016). How to design a national innovation system in a time of global innovation networks: A Russian perspective. In: The Global Innovation Index 2016. Winning with Global Innovation. Geneva, Fontainebleau, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, INSEAD, and WIPO, Ch. 13, pp. 159-166.Hagedoorn J., Cloodt M. (2003). Measuring innovative performance: is there an advantage in using multiple indicators? Research Policy, Vol. 32, No. 8, pp. 1365-1379.Hagedoorn J., Cloodt M. (2003). Measuring innovative performance: is there an advantage in using multiple indicators? Research Policy, Vol. 32, No. 8, pp. 1365-1379.Hollenstein H. (1996). A composite indicator of a firm’s innovativeness. An empirical analysis based on survey data for Swiss manufacturing. Research Policy, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 633-645.Hollenstein H. (1996). A composite indicator of a firm’s innovativeness. An empirical analysis based on survey data for Swiss manufacturing. Research Policy, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 633-645.Kline S. J., Rosenberg N. (1986). An overview of innovation. In: R. Landau, N. Rosenberg (eds.). The positive sum strategy: Harnessing technology for economic growth. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Kline S. J., Rosenberg N. (1986). An overview of innovation. In: R. Landau, N. Rosenberg (eds.). The positive sum strategy: Harnessing technology for economic growth. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Molle F., Mollinga P. (2003). Water poverty indicators: Conceptual problems and policy issues. Water Policy, Vol. 5, No. 5-6, pp. 529-544.Molle F., Mollinga P. (2003). Water poverty indicators: Conceptual problems and policy issues. Water Policy, Vol. 5, No. 5-6, pp. 529-544.Nardo M., Saisana M., Saltelli A., Tarantola S., Hoffman A., Giovannini E. (2008). Handbook on constructing composite indicators: methodology and user guide, Paris: OECD.Nardo M., Saisana M., Saltelli A., Tarantola S., Hoffman A., Giovannini E. (2008). Handbook on constructing composite indicators: methodology and user guide, Paris: OECD.Nelson R. R. (1993). National innovation systems: a comparative analysis. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press.Nelson R. R. (1993). National innovation systems: a comparative analysis. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press.OECD (2016). Science, technology and industry outlook 2016. Paris: OECD.OECD (2016). Science, technology and industry outlook 2016. Paris: OECD.Pohn-Weidinger S., Gassler H., Gruber M., Polt W., Schibany A., Leo H. (2001). Innovationsbericht 2001. Wien: Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Arbeit.Pohn-Weidinger S., Gassler H., Gruber M., Polt W., Schibany A., Leo H. (2001). Innovationsbericht 2001. Wien: Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Arbeit.Porter M. E., Stern S. (1999). New challenge to America’s prosperity. Council on competitiveness.Porter M. E., Stern S. (1999). New challenge to America’s prosperity. Council on competitiveness.Saisana M., Tarantola S. (2002). State-of-the-art report on current methodologies and practices for composite indicator development. Ispra, Italy: European Commission, Joint Research Centre.Saisana M., Tarantola S. (2002). State-of-the-art report on current methodologies and practices for composite indicator development. Ispra, Italy: European Commission, Joint Research Centre.

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