rus
TS_pub
technospheramag
technospheramag
ТЕХНОСФЕРА_РИЦ
Issue #1/2024
O. A. Koshkareva
On the Goal Attainability of the Current Concept of Technological Development
On the Goal Attainability of the Current Concept of Technological Development
DOI: 10.22184/1993-7296.FRos.2024.18.1.16.31
The paper provides a brief overview of the technological development concept of the Russian Federation until 2030. The structure, principles and goals described in the concept are considered. The proposed achievement indicators for the goals set are considered, the conclusions are drawn in relation to its attainability and representativeness. The definitions of degrading and negative innovations are given. The conclusions are drawn in terms of the strengths and weaknesses of the concept, and the weakness adjustment methods are proposed.
The paper provides a brief overview of the technological development concept of the Russian Federation until 2030. The structure, principles and goals described in the concept are considered. The proposed achievement indicators for the goals set are considered, the conclusions are drawn in relation to its attainability and representativeness. The definitions of degrading and negative innovations are given. The conclusions are drawn in terms of the strengths and weaknesses of the concept, and the weakness adjustment methods are proposed.
Теги: concept of technological development critical technologies “end-to-end” technologies indicators of achievement of technological development goals technological sovereignty концепция технологического развития критические технологии показатели достижения целей технологического развития сквозные технологии технологический суверенитет
On the Goal Attainability of the Current Concept of
Technological Development
O. A. Koshkareva
Institute of Science Development Problems, Russian Academy of Sciences (ISDP RAS), Moscow, Russia
The paper provides a brief overview of the technological development concept of the Russian Federation until 2030. The structure, principles and goals described in the concept are considered. The proposed achievement indicators for the goals set are considered, the conclusions are drawn in relation to its attainability and representativeness. The definitions of degrading and negative innovations are given. The conclusions are drawn in terms of the strengths and weaknesses of the concept, and the weakness adjustment methods are proposed.
Key words: Concept of Technological Development, indicators of achievement of technological development goals, technological sovereignty, “end-to-end” technologies, critical technologies
Article received: December 01, 2023
Article accepted: January 11, 2024
Introduction
The Russian Federation continues to exist within the framework of the most severe sanctions imposed by the Western countries. The sanctions are aimed at negating the Russian economic achievements over the past 15 years by its isolation from the technology imports. “We’re going to stifle Russia’s ability and its economy to grow for years to come”, – said US president Joe Biden in the spring of 2022 (from D. Biden’s speech at the trades unions conference: https://www.gazeta.ru/politics/2022/04/06/14707897.shtml). However, the Russian Federation is coping with the sanctions pressure more successfully than some experts have predicted. A large number of measures have been taken to support the economy, including the Concept of Technological Development adopted last spring that is designed to ensure the achievement of technological sovereignty through the implementation of the domestic research and development results.
The purpose of this paper is to consider the main provisions of the Concept of Technological Development and assess the attainability of goals set.
Brief overview of the Concept
In May 2023, by order of the Government of the Russian Federation, the Concept of Technological Development for the period until 2030 (hereinafter referred to as the Concept) was adopted [1]. The Concept is a continuation of strategic documents aimed at the sustainable scientific, technological and socio-economic development of the country. The document is aimed at ensuring the state security and sovereignty. It introduces a number of basic concepts and ideas and highlights various threats to the scientific and technological development of Russia. The stages of technological development of the Russian Federation after the break-up of the USSR are discussed. The authors have assessed the current period of time as the third stage of research and technological development of the modern Russian economy. It is indicated that one of the most important tasks of this period is to achieve the technological sovereignty of our state. The principles, goals and indicators of technological development are specified (Fig. 1). The achievement mechanisms for the goals set are described (Table 1). The implementation paths are indicated for each mechanism.
It is necessary to mention that some mechanisms raise questions about their applicability. For example, all forms of government orders for applied research and experimental development shall be generated only on the basis of end-to-end technologies, and the result shall be a registered intellectual property item. The preliminary list of end-to-end technologies is rather limited and includes only five areas of socio-economic development. Obviously, the efforts should be concentrated on the most important areas and the most significant technologies, but such an aggressive restriction may be more likely to harm the technological sovereignty. The requirement for the result to be a registered intellectual property item contradicts the principle of recognition of the right to risk indicated in the same document. When conducting any research and development works, there is always a risk that the plan will not succeed. From a scientific point of view, this is also a good result, since it leads to the new knowledge. However, the knowledge cannot/should not always be represented as an intellectual property item.
For example, in other case it is scheduled to develop “comprehensive organizational forms of management and the network format of its interaction” as a part of the mechanism “Development of new integration forms of the research, production and technological activities”. The comprehensive forms of management often entail different problems related to the coordination of various authorities and distribution of responsibilities between them. Moreover, if there is also a “network format of interaction” between them, there is every chance that such an organization will provide unpredictable results with overall low efficiency, and the actions of all members will not be coordinated. The appropriateness of such experiments in an area critical to the national security is questionable. In addition to the controversial feasibility of individual proposals, some ideas allow for ambiguous interpretation.
The document notes the need for an integrated systematic approach to the full innovation cycle arrangement. It is assumed that such an approach will be implemented on the basis of the deployed priority projects of technological sovereignty [2]. The requirements for such projects are described.
The role of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation in the technological development acceleration is described. The functions of the constituent entities include implementation of their own scientific and technological programs, deployment of technological development infrastructure, personnel training, support for technology companies and various combination models for scientific, technological and production activities, as well as development of various forms and modes in favor of technological development.
Despite the sanctions, international cooperation is expected to be expanded. The joint development and joint production efforts, development of an international regulatory framework, development of cross-border cooperation and development of human capacity are envisaged.
It is noteworthy that the main emphasis is placed on the end-to-end technologies, as well as the quantitative results, without any quality assessment. The document ignores the possible contribution of scientific and development organizations to ensuring the technological sovereignty of the Russian Federation; it provides for the concentration of innovative activities in the higher educational institutions. Moreover, there are some questions raised that there is no calculation methods for 12 out of the 16 proposed indicators, while the benchmarks for many of them have already been set. In general, achievement of the goals set seems rather problematic.
Achievement indicators for the technological development goals
In total, the Concept proposes 16 indicators, the attainment of which is expected to confirm the achievement of goals set. According to the author of this article, not all proposed indicators and their values are selected successfully. For most indicators, a calculation methodology still needs to be developed. The proposed indicators are considered in more detail below.
Achievement Indicators for the Goal Titled “Ensuring National Control Over the Reproduction of Critical and End-to-End Technologies”
Achievement of the first goal is supposed to be monitored by the implementation of five indicators, for two of which the Concept stipulates for the methodology development. At present, there is no information on the calculation methods for these indicators.
Indicator “Achieved Level of Technological Sovereignty by the Type of Products”
The first indicator of achieving the goal titled “Ensuring national control over the reproduction of critical and end-to-end technologies” is “Achieved level of technological sovereignty by the type of products”. The EU has developed a request for a similar indicator in 2020 with the pandemic onset and the relevant impairment of supply chains. An attempt has been made to assess sovereignty using the foreign trade flows. However, as the time has shown, this approach has not been successful [3]. There have been some attempts to develop an indicator adequate to the task set. To achieve this, it was accepted that the technological sovereignty is a choice that should consider three parameters: the economic availability of solutions, the level of future risks related to the absence of national solutions, and the ease of access to the imported alternatives. The term “solutions” in this case should be understood as a set of technical and technological solutions necessary for the full production cycle. At the moment, there are several indicator calculation methods, including some methods proposed by the Russian researchers: Yu. V. Daneikin (2022), “Object management as a set of interconnected and interacting elements of an integral whole” [4]; E. Yu. Kamchatova, M. N. Muratova (2023), “Resource-based approach” [5].
At present, the urgency of a task to determine the sufficient level of technological sovereignty to ensure the national security, as well as development of its assessment methods in relation to the certain industries and technological ground works obtained within the boundaries of their development, is extremely high. However, there is still no field-proven step-by-step algorithm.
Indicator “Achieved Level of Development of the Critical and End-to-End Technologies (In Accordance With the Established List)”
Apparently, the next indicator “Achieved level of development of the critical and end-to-end technologies (in accordance with the established list)” will be one of the components of the previous indicator. An Appendix to the Concept provides a list of end-to-end technologies. The list of critical technologies of the Russian Federation was approved by the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No.899 dated July 7, 2011 [6]. The author has still not been able to find certain calculation methods for the development level of the declared technologies in open sources. In the references it is possible to find proposals for assessing the technological development level of economic sectors: several methodological approaches (rating, model, and regulatory) to its assessment are proposed. It should be noted that for all the proposed methods, the main limitation preventing complete consideration of the calculation specifications and accuracy is the lack of available statistics. The developed standard interdepartmental assessment methodology for the technological development level applies a rating approach that ranks the assessment objects according to the integral indicator value. The experts agree that this methodology needs to be improved, since the system of indicators applied does not completely cover a number of significant technological aspects [7]. In addition, there is an assessment method for the technology readiness level established by GOST [8]. It allows to evaluate a specific technology, but has a number of significant limitations. Supposedly, the authors of the Concept kept in mind this method or its modification. However, appropriateness of this method to assess the goal achievement as a part of the Concept causes some concerns due to the large number of the critical and end-to-end technologies. Having considered the features and limitations of this approach, information capacity of reducing several results to a single integral indicator, even for each area, will be extremely low.
Indicator «Technological Dependence Ratio»
The indicator “Technological dependence ratio” is determined as the ratio of the number of patent applications filed by the foreign applicants to the national patent office to the number of domestic patent applications filed by the domestic applicants.
КTD = IAFOR / IADOM,
where IAFOR – the number of applications for patents of the Russian Federation for an invention filed with the Federal Service for Intellectual Property during the reporting year, according to which none of the applicants is a resident of the Russian Federation;
IADOM – the number of applications for patents of the Russian Federation for an invention filed with the Federal Service for Intellectual Property during the reporting year, according to which at least one of the applicants is a resident of the Russian Federation.
If we consider this indicator feasibility, we should dwell on several points.
First, when filing a patent application, the inventor / researcher reveals his invention, and this information becomes publicly available. Moreover, a patent for an invention obtained in the Russian Federation provides the intellectual property protection only in the territory of the Russian Federation. To protect it outside the country, it is necessary either to submit appropriate applications to the national patent offices of foreign countries, or to submit an international application to the Federal Service for Intellectual Property in accordance with one of the international agreements on the protection of intellectual property rights. In addition, a patent does not protect an idea, but only a specific mechanism to implement the proposed idea. In consideration of the foregoing, in the current conditions, patenting an invention or model does not always look like a good decision for the developer.
Secondly, this indicator turns out to be completely uninformative in relation to the successful achievement of national control over the reproduction of critical and end-to-end technologies. This indicator does not consider whether any applications are filed in the field of the required technologies, some other areas, or generally in relation to the pseudoscientific and non-functioning inventions. There are several cases when the Federal Service for Intellectual Property has issued patents for non-functioning, pseudoscientific and mock-scientific inventions and devices, for example, “Symptomatic disease treatment using an aspen stick at the time of the new moon to restore the integrity of the human body energy shell” (patent No.2083239). The Federal Service for Intellectual Property does not experimentally test the performance of patents. In addition, a submitted patent application is still far from the patent and, moreover, from the product launch. It should be understood that when calculating this indicator, information from the national patent office is used. The Russian Federation has so far strictly complied with all provisions of international law. Accordingly, if a patent is issued in another country in accordance with an agreement on patent cooperation and protection of intellectual property rights, then it is valid in our country. Thus, it is very doubtful that the technological dependence ratio indicates the actual state of things in ensuring control over reproduction of the most important technologies.
If we consider achievability of the given values of the technology dependence ratio, then it is interesting that they are already higher than the Concept assumes by the end of the period of its implementation. Thus, according to the generally accepted calculation method for this ratio, currently it is already less than 42% for the inventions (that corresponds to the planning level for 2026–2027), and 40.3% for the production prototypes. For other types of intellectual property, this indicator is also significantly better than it is determined in the Concept in 2030 (Table 3).
On the other part, if we consider the dynamics of filed applications for inventions, we can confirm that over the past five years the indicators have been steadily declining. Moreover, if for the production prototypes it is quite likely to achieve the target value by 2030, then the scheduled value for the invention indicator can probably only be achieved through an even more significant reduction in the number of applications accepted from the foreign applicants.
This indicator can easily be “inflated,” for example, by determining it as one of the assessment criteria for performance of the research organizations and higher educational institutions. Another way to achieve the target value is to make it more difficult for foreign applicants to submit the applications.
Indicator “Growth Rate of Internal Research and Development Costs (In Comparable Prices, to the Level of 2022)”
During the entire lifetime of modern Russia, every strategic planning document for the development of scientific and technological activities has stated that it is necessary to increase the research and development costs. However, over all these years, it was not possible to achieve a significant increase in funding. Over the past five years, there has been no noticeable growth of this indicator in constant prices. Moreover, over the past ten years the research and development costs have decreased by 0.28% in comparison to the prices applicable in 2000 (Table 3).
The trends in research and development costs in constant prices is shown in Fig. 2. At present, the experts do not see any objective reasons for significant changes in the situation.
According to the Concept’s forecast, the growth rate of internal research and development costs should be increased by 46.3% relative to the value given in 2022. If we consider any changes in the indicator in 2022 in constant prices, we can see that in fact there was a decline by almost 5%. It is not entirely clear how to rely on the reference year in this case; it is unlikely that the authors of the concept have assumed that the research and development costs should be reduced.
There is no question that an increase in research and development costs will lead to an increase in the up-to-date domestic technologies. However, this indicator cannot be considered as a consequence of achieving the goal “Ensuring national control over the reproduction of critical and end-to-end technologies”. It may rather be one of the reasons for fulfillment or non-fulfillment of the tasks to ensure reproduction of the required technologies.
Indicator “Share of Innovative Goods, Works, Services in the Total Scope of Goods Shipped, Works Performed, Services Rendered”
The Concept assumes an increase in the indicator “Share of innovative goods, works, services in the total scope of goods shipped, works performed, services rendered” from 5.2% in 2022 to 8% in 2030, i. e. its increase by one third. An analysis of trends in this indicator by industry and type of economic activity demonstrates the absence of positive dynamics [9, 10].
The Russian government has made a number of important decisions to overcome the negative consequences of sanctions in the scientific and technological field [11]. However, as the experts note, these measures, despite their currently undoubtedly beneficial influence, will not drastically improve the development dynamics of science and technology [12]. As for the representativeness of this indicator, it would probably be more valuable to track changes in the most technology-dependent industries rather than across the entire economy.
Further, we will continue to consider the remaining goals of a fundamental document for the country’s technological development and indicators of their achievement in the second part of our article...
References
Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated 05/20/2023 No. 1315‑r “On approval of the Concept of technological development for the period up to 2030”. URL: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/1301657597?ysclid=ls2aja4dpd897990163.
Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation of April 15, 2023 No. 603 “On approval of priority areas for projects of technological sovereignty and projects of structural adaptation of the economy of the Russian Federation and Regulations on the Conditions for classifying projects as projects of technological sovereignty and projects of structural adaptation of the economy of the Russian Federation, on providing information on projects of technological sovereignty and projects of structural adaptation of the economy of the Russian Federation and conducting the register of these projects, as well as the requirements for organizations authorized to submit conclusions on the compliance of projects with the requirements for projects of technological sovereignty and projects of structural adaptation of the economy of the Russian Federation”.
Eremchenko O. A. Changing the level of technological sovereignty in foreign countries: the experience of the European Union / O. A. Eremchenko, N. G. Kurakova. Economics of science. 2023; 9(3): 47–60. DOI 10.22394/2410–132X‑2023-9-3-47-60.
Daneikin Yu. V. Achieving technological sovereignty of high-tech sectors of the Russian economy: state and prospects. Bulletin of the Russian State University. The series “Economics. Management. The right”. 2022; 4: 74–92. DOI: 10.28995/2073‑6304‑2022‑4‑74‑92.
Kamchatova E. Yu., Muratova M. N. The possibilities of using the resource approach in ensuring the technological sovereignty of the industry of the Russian Federation. Innovations and investments. 2023; 2:196–201.
Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated July 7, 2011 No. 899 “On approval of priority directions for the development of science, technology and engineering and the list of critical technologies of the Russian Federation”. URL: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/902287707.
Lebedev K. V., Vasilyeva L. V., Sumenova E. S. Methodological approaches to assessing the level of technological development of economic sectors. STAGE. 2019;4. URL: https:. cyberleninka.ru/article/n/metodologicheskie-podhody-k-otsenke-urovnya-tehnologicheskogo-razvitiya-otrasley-ekonomiki (date of application: 11/22/2023).
GOST R 58048-2017 Technology transfer. Methodological guidelines for assessing the level of maturity of technologies. URL: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/1200158331?ysclid=ls2cki5f559627634.
Timofeev D. V. Trends and problems of production of innovative goods, works and services in the Russian industry. Kreativnaya ekonomika. 2017;11(9):1003–1018. URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/tendentsii-i-problemy-proizvodstva-innovatsionnyh-tovarov-rabot-i-uslug-v-promyshlennosti-rossii (accessed: 10/15/2023).
Zavarukhin V., Solomentseva O., Solopova M.et al. Science, Technology and Innovation in Russia: 2022 brief data book. – M: ISS RAS, 2023. 132 p. ISBN 978‑5‑91294‑184‑9.
Government measures to increase the stability of the economy and support citizens in the face of sanctions http://government.ru/sanctions_measures/category/finance/.
Lenchuk E. B. Scientific and technological development of Russia under the conditions of sanctions pressure. Ekonomicheskoe vozrozhdenie Rossii. 2022; 73 (3): 52–60. URL: https:. cyberleninka.ru/article/n/nauchno-tehnologicheskoe-razvitie-rossii-v-usloviyah-sanktsionnogo-davleniya (date of application: 10/23/2023).
Technological Development
O. A. Koshkareva
Institute of Science Development Problems, Russian Academy of Sciences (ISDP RAS), Moscow, Russia
The paper provides a brief overview of the technological development concept of the Russian Federation until 2030. The structure, principles and goals described in the concept are considered. The proposed achievement indicators for the goals set are considered, the conclusions are drawn in relation to its attainability and representativeness. The definitions of degrading and negative innovations are given. The conclusions are drawn in terms of the strengths and weaknesses of the concept, and the weakness adjustment methods are proposed.
Key words: Concept of Technological Development, indicators of achievement of technological development goals, technological sovereignty, “end-to-end” technologies, critical technologies
Article received: December 01, 2023
Article accepted: January 11, 2024
Introduction
The Russian Federation continues to exist within the framework of the most severe sanctions imposed by the Western countries. The sanctions are aimed at negating the Russian economic achievements over the past 15 years by its isolation from the technology imports. “We’re going to stifle Russia’s ability and its economy to grow for years to come”, – said US president Joe Biden in the spring of 2022 (from D. Biden’s speech at the trades unions conference: https://www.gazeta.ru/politics/2022/04/06/14707897.shtml). However, the Russian Federation is coping with the sanctions pressure more successfully than some experts have predicted. A large number of measures have been taken to support the economy, including the Concept of Technological Development adopted last spring that is designed to ensure the achievement of technological sovereignty through the implementation of the domestic research and development results.
The purpose of this paper is to consider the main provisions of the Concept of Technological Development and assess the attainability of goals set.
Brief overview of the Concept
In May 2023, by order of the Government of the Russian Federation, the Concept of Technological Development for the period until 2030 (hereinafter referred to as the Concept) was adopted [1]. The Concept is a continuation of strategic documents aimed at the sustainable scientific, technological and socio-economic development of the country. The document is aimed at ensuring the state security and sovereignty. It introduces a number of basic concepts and ideas and highlights various threats to the scientific and technological development of Russia. The stages of technological development of the Russian Federation after the break-up of the USSR are discussed. The authors have assessed the current period of time as the third stage of research and technological development of the modern Russian economy. It is indicated that one of the most important tasks of this period is to achieve the technological sovereignty of our state. The principles, goals and indicators of technological development are specified (Fig. 1). The achievement mechanisms for the goals set are described (Table 1). The implementation paths are indicated for each mechanism.
It is necessary to mention that some mechanisms raise questions about their applicability. For example, all forms of government orders for applied research and experimental development shall be generated only on the basis of end-to-end technologies, and the result shall be a registered intellectual property item. The preliminary list of end-to-end technologies is rather limited and includes only five areas of socio-economic development. Obviously, the efforts should be concentrated on the most important areas and the most significant technologies, but such an aggressive restriction may be more likely to harm the technological sovereignty. The requirement for the result to be a registered intellectual property item contradicts the principle of recognition of the right to risk indicated in the same document. When conducting any research and development works, there is always a risk that the plan will not succeed. From a scientific point of view, this is also a good result, since it leads to the new knowledge. However, the knowledge cannot/should not always be represented as an intellectual property item.
For example, in other case it is scheduled to develop “comprehensive organizational forms of management and the network format of its interaction” as a part of the mechanism “Development of new integration forms of the research, production and technological activities”. The comprehensive forms of management often entail different problems related to the coordination of various authorities and distribution of responsibilities between them. Moreover, if there is also a “network format of interaction” between them, there is every chance that such an organization will provide unpredictable results with overall low efficiency, and the actions of all members will not be coordinated. The appropriateness of such experiments in an area critical to the national security is questionable. In addition to the controversial feasibility of individual proposals, some ideas allow for ambiguous interpretation.
The document notes the need for an integrated systematic approach to the full innovation cycle arrangement. It is assumed that such an approach will be implemented on the basis of the deployed priority projects of technological sovereignty [2]. The requirements for such projects are described.
The role of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation in the technological development acceleration is described. The functions of the constituent entities include implementation of their own scientific and technological programs, deployment of technological development infrastructure, personnel training, support for technology companies and various combination models for scientific, technological and production activities, as well as development of various forms and modes in favor of technological development.
Despite the sanctions, international cooperation is expected to be expanded. The joint development and joint production efforts, development of an international regulatory framework, development of cross-border cooperation and development of human capacity are envisaged.
It is noteworthy that the main emphasis is placed on the end-to-end technologies, as well as the quantitative results, without any quality assessment. The document ignores the possible contribution of scientific and development organizations to ensuring the technological sovereignty of the Russian Federation; it provides for the concentration of innovative activities in the higher educational institutions. Moreover, there are some questions raised that there is no calculation methods for 12 out of the 16 proposed indicators, while the benchmarks for many of them have already been set. In general, achievement of the goals set seems rather problematic.
Achievement indicators for the technological development goals
In total, the Concept proposes 16 indicators, the attainment of which is expected to confirm the achievement of goals set. According to the author of this article, not all proposed indicators and their values are selected successfully. For most indicators, a calculation methodology still needs to be developed. The proposed indicators are considered in more detail below.
Achievement Indicators for the Goal Titled “Ensuring National Control Over the Reproduction of Critical and End-to-End Technologies”
Achievement of the first goal is supposed to be monitored by the implementation of five indicators, for two of which the Concept stipulates for the methodology development. At present, there is no information on the calculation methods for these indicators.
Indicator “Achieved Level of Technological Sovereignty by the Type of Products”
The first indicator of achieving the goal titled “Ensuring national control over the reproduction of critical and end-to-end technologies” is “Achieved level of technological sovereignty by the type of products”. The EU has developed a request for a similar indicator in 2020 with the pandemic onset and the relevant impairment of supply chains. An attempt has been made to assess sovereignty using the foreign trade flows. However, as the time has shown, this approach has not been successful [3]. There have been some attempts to develop an indicator adequate to the task set. To achieve this, it was accepted that the technological sovereignty is a choice that should consider three parameters: the economic availability of solutions, the level of future risks related to the absence of national solutions, and the ease of access to the imported alternatives. The term “solutions” in this case should be understood as a set of technical and technological solutions necessary for the full production cycle. At the moment, there are several indicator calculation methods, including some methods proposed by the Russian researchers: Yu. V. Daneikin (2022), “Object management as a set of interconnected and interacting elements of an integral whole” [4]; E. Yu. Kamchatova, M. N. Muratova (2023), “Resource-based approach” [5].
At present, the urgency of a task to determine the sufficient level of technological sovereignty to ensure the national security, as well as development of its assessment methods in relation to the certain industries and technological ground works obtained within the boundaries of their development, is extremely high. However, there is still no field-proven step-by-step algorithm.
Indicator “Achieved Level of Development of the Critical and End-to-End Technologies (In Accordance With the Established List)”
Apparently, the next indicator “Achieved level of development of the critical and end-to-end technologies (in accordance with the established list)” will be one of the components of the previous indicator. An Appendix to the Concept provides a list of end-to-end technologies. The list of critical technologies of the Russian Federation was approved by the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No.899 dated July 7, 2011 [6]. The author has still not been able to find certain calculation methods for the development level of the declared technologies in open sources. In the references it is possible to find proposals for assessing the technological development level of economic sectors: several methodological approaches (rating, model, and regulatory) to its assessment are proposed. It should be noted that for all the proposed methods, the main limitation preventing complete consideration of the calculation specifications and accuracy is the lack of available statistics. The developed standard interdepartmental assessment methodology for the technological development level applies a rating approach that ranks the assessment objects according to the integral indicator value. The experts agree that this methodology needs to be improved, since the system of indicators applied does not completely cover a number of significant technological aspects [7]. In addition, there is an assessment method for the technology readiness level established by GOST [8]. It allows to evaluate a specific technology, but has a number of significant limitations. Supposedly, the authors of the Concept kept in mind this method or its modification. However, appropriateness of this method to assess the goal achievement as a part of the Concept causes some concerns due to the large number of the critical and end-to-end technologies. Having considered the features and limitations of this approach, information capacity of reducing several results to a single integral indicator, even for each area, will be extremely low.
Indicator «Technological Dependence Ratio»
The indicator “Technological dependence ratio” is determined as the ratio of the number of patent applications filed by the foreign applicants to the national patent office to the number of domestic patent applications filed by the domestic applicants.
КTD = IAFOR / IADOM,
where IAFOR – the number of applications for patents of the Russian Federation for an invention filed with the Federal Service for Intellectual Property during the reporting year, according to which none of the applicants is a resident of the Russian Federation;
IADOM – the number of applications for patents of the Russian Federation for an invention filed with the Federal Service for Intellectual Property during the reporting year, according to which at least one of the applicants is a resident of the Russian Federation.
If we consider this indicator feasibility, we should dwell on several points.
First, when filing a patent application, the inventor / researcher reveals his invention, and this information becomes publicly available. Moreover, a patent for an invention obtained in the Russian Federation provides the intellectual property protection only in the territory of the Russian Federation. To protect it outside the country, it is necessary either to submit appropriate applications to the national patent offices of foreign countries, or to submit an international application to the Federal Service for Intellectual Property in accordance with one of the international agreements on the protection of intellectual property rights. In addition, a patent does not protect an idea, but only a specific mechanism to implement the proposed idea. In consideration of the foregoing, in the current conditions, patenting an invention or model does not always look like a good decision for the developer.
Secondly, this indicator turns out to be completely uninformative in relation to the successful achievement of national control over the reproduction of critical and end-to-end technologies. This indicator does not consider whether any applications are filed in the field of the required technologies, some other areas, or generally in relation to the pseudoscientific and non-functioning inventions. There are several cases when the Federal Service for Intellectual Property has issued patents for non-functioning, pseudoscientific and mock-scientific inventions and devices, for example, “Symptomatic disease treatment using an aspen stick at the time of the new moon to restore the integrity of the human body energy shell” (patent No.2083239). The Federal Service for Intellectual Property does not experimentally test the performance of patents. In addition, a submitted patent application is still far from the patent and, moreover, from the product launch. It should be understood that when calculating this indicator, information from the national patent office is used. The Russian Federation has so far strictly complied with all provisions of international law. Accordingly, if a patent is issued in another country in accordance with an agreement on patent cooperation and protection of intellectual property rights, then it is valid in our country. Thus, it is very doubtful that the technological dependence ratio indicates the actual state of things in ensuring control over reproduction of the most important technologies.
If we consider achievability of the given values of the technology dependence ratio, then it is interesting that they are already higher than the Concept assumes by the end of the period of its implementation. Thus, according to the generally accepted calculation method for this ratio, currently it is already less than 42% for the inventions (that corresponds to the planning level for 2026–2027), and 40.3% for the production prototypes. For other types of intellectual property, this indicator is also significantly better than it is determined in the Concept in 2030 (Table 3).
On the other part, if we consider the dynamics of filed applications for inventions, we can confirm that over the past five years the indicators have been steadily declining. Moreover, if for the production prototypes it is quite likely to achieve the target value by 2030, then the scheduled value for the invention indicator can probably only be achieved through an even more significant reduction in the number of applications accepted from the foreign applicants.
This indicator can easily be “inflated,” for example, by determining it as one of the assessment criteria for performance of the research organizations and higher educational institutions. Another way to achieve the target value is to make it more difficult for foreign applicants to submit the applications.
Indicator “Growth Rate of Internal Research and Development Costs (In Comparable Prices, to the Level of 2022)”
During the entire lifetime of modern Russia, every strategic planning document for the development of scientific and technological activities has stated that it is necessary to increase the research and development costs. However, over all these years, it was not possible to achieve a significant increase in funding. Over the past five years, there has been no noticeable growth of this indicator in constant prices. Moreover, over the past ten years the research and development costs have decreased by 0.28% in comparison to the prices applicable in 2000 (Table 3).
The trends in research and development costs in constant prices is shown in Fig. 2. At present, the experts do not see any objective reasons for significant changes in the situation.
According to the Concept’s forecast, the growth rate of internal research and development costs should be increased by 46.3% relative to the value given in 2022. If we consider any changes in the indicator in 2022 in constant prices, we can see that in fact there was a decline by almost 5%. It is not entirely clear how to rely on the reference year in this case; it is unlikely that the authors of the concept have assumed that the research and development costs should be reduced.
There is no question that an increase in research and development costs will lead to an increase in the up-to-date domestic technologies. However, this indicator cannot be considered as a consequence of achieving the goal “Ensuring national control over the reproduction of critical and end-to-end technologies”. It may rather be one of the reasons for fulfillment or non-fulfillment of the tasks to ensure reproduction of the required technologies.
Indicator “Share of Innovative Goods, Works, Services in the Total Scope of Goods Shipped, Works Performed, Services Rendered”
The Concept assumes an increase in the indicator “Share of innovative goods, works, services in the total scope of goods shipped, works performed, services rendered” from 5.2% in 2022 to 8% in 2030, i. e. its increase by one third. An analysis of trends in this indicator by industry and type of economic activity demonstrates the absence of positive dynamics [9, 10].
The Russian government has made a number of important decisions to overcome the negative consequences of sanctions in the scientific and technological field [11]. However, as the experts note, these measures, despite their currently undoubtedly beneficial influence, will not drastically improve the development dynamics of science and technology [12]. As for the representativeness of this indicator, it would probably be more valuable to track changes in the most technology-dependent industries rather than across the entire economy.
Further, we will continue to consider the remaining goals of a fundamental document for the country’s technological development and indicators of their achievement in the second part of our article...
References
Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated 05/20/2023 No. 1315‑r “On approval of the Concept of technological development for the period up to 2030”. URL: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/1301657597?ysclid=ls2aja4dpd897990163.
Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation of April 15, 2023 No. 603 “On approval of priority areas for projects of technological sovereignty and projects of structural adaptation of the economy of the Russian Federation and Regulations on the Conditions for classifying projects as projects of technological sovereignty and projects of structural adaptation of the economy of the Russian Federation, on providing information on projects of technological sovereignty and projects of structural adaptation of the economy of the Russian Federation and conducting the register of these projects, as well as the requirements for organizations authorized to submit conclusions on the compliance of projects with the requirements for projects of technological sovereignty and projects of structural adaptation of the economy of the Russian Federation”.
Eremchenko O. A. Changing the level of technological sovereignty in foreign countries: the experience of the European Union / O. A. Eremchenko, N. G. Kurakova. Economics of science. 2023; 9(3): 47–60. DOI 10.22394/2410–132X‑2023-9-3-47-60.
Daneikin Yu. V. Achieving technological sovereignty of high-tech sectors of the Russian economy: state and prospects. Bulletin of the Russian State University. The series “Economics. Management. The right”. 2022; 4: 74–92. DOI: 10.28995/2073‑6304‑2022‑4‑74‑92.
Kamchatova E. Yu., Muratova M. N. The possibilities of using the resource approach in ensuring the technological sovereignty of the industry of the Russian Federation. Innovations and investments. 2023; 2:196–201.
Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated July 7, 2011 No. 899 “On approval of priority directions for the development of science, technology and engineering and the list of critical technologies of the Russian Federation”. URL: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/902287707.
Lebedev K. V., Vasilyeva L. V., Sumenova E. S. Methodological approaches to assessing the level of technological development of economic sectors. STAGE. 2019;4. URL: https:. cyberleninka.ru/article/n/metodologicheskie-podhody-k-otsenke-urovnya-tehnologicheskogo-razvitiya-otrasley-ekonomiki (date of application: 11/22/2023).
GOST R 58048-2017 Technology transfer. Methodological guidelines for assessing the level of maturity of technologies. URL: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/1200158331?ysclid=ls2cki5f559627634.
Timofeev D. V. Trends and problems of production of innovative goods, works and services in the Russian industry. Kreativnaya ekonomika. 2017;11(9):1003–1018. URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/tendentsii-i-problemy-proizvodstva-innovatsionnyh-tovarov-rabot-i-uslug-v-promyshlennosti-rossii (accessed: 10/15/2023).
Zavarukhin V., Solomentseva O., Solopova M.et al. Science, Technology and Innovation in Russia: 2022 brief data book. – M: ISS RAS, 2023. 132 p. ISBN 978‑5‑91294‑184‑9.
Government measures to increase the stability of the economy and support citizens in the face of sanctions http://government.ru/sanctions_measures/category/finance/.
Lenchuk E. B. Scientific and technological development of Russia under the conditions of sanctions pressure. Ekonomicheskoe vozrozhdenie Rossii. 2022; 73 (3): 52–60. URL: https:. cyberleninka.ru/article/n/nauchno-tehnologicheskoe-razvitie-rossii-v-usloviyah-sanktsionnogo-davleniya (date of application: 10/23/2023).
Readers feedback
