The Russian economy does not accept innovations
To change the situation, you need to create a critical mass of curious people
Vladimir Mau, Forbes.ruThe author is Rector of the Academy of National Economy under the Government of the Russian Federation, editor—in-chief of the journal "Economic Policy"
In the lexicon of the Russian political elite, the word "innovation" takes a leading position. With the light hand of Dmitry Medvedev, absolutely everyone is talking about innovative development. The reason for the president's insistence is clear: Russia risks becoming forever lagging behind from ever lagging behind. The dependence on raw materials in recent decades is unprecedented in Russian history, and maintaining it for another 10-15 years may make the degradation irreversible. The alternative to innovative development is not stagnation (as many hope), but degradation.
It is not surprising that representatives of the highest political elite, who have proven their ability to solve significant tasks, are involved in the transfer of the domestic economy to an innovative path. Innovations are supposed to be implemented manually (in accordance with domestic traditions), while creating conditions for the launch of the national innovation system.
The solution of this task has no precedents in Russian history. It's not that the Russian economy is not receptive to innovation. The fact is that it has never been like that — neither under Soviet rule, nor under tsarism, nor during the Golden Horde. Individual examples of innovative breakthroughs were precisely breakthroughs: the authorities focused on specific areas and provided jerks with harsh, if not cruel, methods.
Very few economies were initially innovatively receptive. The propensity for innovation at the beginning of Modern times manifested itself in certain areas of England and Scotland, which led to an industrial revolution, the reasons for which are still debated by economists. As the global market became established, the innovative spirit began to spread in other countries — first in Europe and North America, and then in Asia. Almost everywhere, innovative receptivity ran parallel (though not simultaneously) with political liberalization. Countries rich in natural resources showed the least demand for innovation.
The problem of innovative development has several levels. Firstly, we are talking about the ability to generate new knowledge, which requires a high level of development of fundamental science. Secondly, about the ability to transform fundamental knowledge into applied research and development that can be demonstrated to business. Thirdly, there is a demand from business for new solutions and technologies. Fourth, the existence of institutional conditions (primarily the protection of property rights) that encourage the researcher to commercialize the results of his research. All this, in turn, is the result of the existence of developed institutions of economic democracy in the country — from competition to effective judicial and law enforcement systems.
Governments around the world are trying to stimulate innovative development — they finance science, create technology parks. But the two most successful examples of rapid innovative development are not the result of conscious efforts of the state. I am referring to the innovation zones around the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Stanford University (the famous Silicon Valley). The concentration of innovation activity is explained by the presence of powerful research centers and a number of subjective factors, due to which the university management began to pay special attention to commercialization and technology transfer.
This does not negate the strong demand for innovation from private firms and the state. But the peculiarity of the American model is the openness of state innovation programs, that is, the willingness of the state to provide developments made with budget money for widespread commercial use. This applies even to the results of research carried out for military purposes — this practice stimulates competition and makes it possible to reduce the cost of defense purchases.
But the main thing is still the concentration of people who are able to engage in creative search. People for whom the meaning of life is the very formulation of non-trivial questions and the search for answers to them. After all, as the head of a powerful research center, the MIT Media Laboratory, Nicholas Negroponte, said, the innovative way is first of all the ability to ask questions.
Portal "Eternal youth" http://vechnayamolodost.ru16.02.2011