Instituto de Estudios Políticos y Derecho Público "Dr. Humberto J. La Roche"
de la Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Políticas de la Universidad del Zulia
Maracaibo, Venezuela
Esta publicación cientíca en formato digital es continuidad de la revista impresa
ISSN-Versión Impresa 0798-1406 / ISSN-Versión on line 2542-3185Depósito legal pp
197402ZU34
ppi 201502ZU4645
Vol.39 N° 69
Julio
Diciembre
2021
Recibido el 14/03/2021 Aceptado el 02/06/2021
ISSN 0798- 1406 ~ De pó si to le gal pp 198502ZU132
Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas
La re vis ta Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas, es una pu bli ca ción aus pi cia da por el Ins ti tu to
de Es tu dios Po lí ti cos y De re cho Pú bli co “Dr. Hum ber to J. La Ro che” (IEPDP) de la Fa-
cul tad de Cien cias Ju rí di cas y Po lí ti cas de la Uni ver si dad del Zu lia.
En tre sus ob je ti vos fi gu ran: con tri buir con el pro gre so cien tí fi co de las Cien cias
Hu ma nas y So cia les, a tra vés de la di vul ga ción de los re sul ta dos lo gra dos por sus in ves-
ti ga do res; es ti mu lar la in ves ti ga ción en es tas áreas del sa ber; y pro pi ciar la pre sen ta-
ción, dis cu sión y con fron ta ción de las ideas y avan ces cien tí fi cos con com pro mi so so cial.
Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas apa re ce dos ve ces al año y pu bli ca tra ba jos ori gi na les con
avan ces o re sul ta dos de in ves ti ga ción en las áreas de Cien cia Po lí ti ca y De re cho Pú bli-
co, los cua les son so me ti dos a la con si de ra ción de ár bi tros ca li fi ca dos.
ESTA PU BLI CA CIÓN APA RE CE RE SE ÑA DA, EN TRE OTROS ÍN DI CES, EN
:
Re vicyhLUZ, In ter na tio nal Po li ti cal Scien ce Abs tracts, Re vis ta In ter ame ri ca na de
Bi blio gra fía, en el Cen tro La ti no ame ri ca no para el De sa rrol lo (CLAD), en Bi blio-
gra fía So cio Eco nó mi ca de Ve ne zue la de RE DIN SE, In ter na tio nal Bi blio graphy of
Po li ti cal Scien ce, Re vencyt, His pa nic Ame ri can Pe rio di cals In dex/HAPI), Ul ri ch’s
Pe rio di cals Di rec tory, EBS CO. Se en cuen tra acre di ta da al Re gis tro de Pu bli ca cio-
nes Cien tí fi cas y Tec no ló gi cas Ve ne zo la nas del FO NA CIT, La tin dex.
Di rec to ra
L
OIRALITH
M. C
HIRINOS
P
ORTILLO
Co mi té Edi tor
Eduviges Morales Villalobos
Fabiola Tavares Duarte
Ma ría Eu ge nia Soto Hernández
Nila Leal González
Carmen Pérez Baralt
Co mi té Ase sor
Pedro Bracho Grand
J. M. Del ga do Ocan do
José Ce rra da
Ri car do Com bel las
An gel Lom bar di
Die ter Nohlen
Al fre do Ra mos Ji mé nez
Go ran Ther born
Frie drich Welsch
Asis ten tes Ad mi nis tra ti vos
Joan López Urdaneta y Nil da Ma rín
Re vis ta Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas. Av. Gua ji ra. Uni ver si dad del Zu lia. Nú cleo Hu ma nís ti co. Fa-
cul tad de Cien cias Ju rí di cas y Po lí ti cas. Ins ti tu to de Es tu dios Po lí ti cos y De re cho Pú bli co
“Dr. Hum ber to J. La Ro che”. Ma ra cai bo, Ve ne zue la. E- mail: cues tio nes po li ti cas@gmail.
com ~ loi chi ri nos por til lo@gmail.com. Te le fax: 58- 0261- 4127018.
Vol. 39, Nº 69 (Julio - Diciembre) 2021, 146-163
IEPDP-Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Políticas - LUZ
Present Innovation Policy: Russian
Regions Data
DOI: https://doi.org/10.46398/cuestpol.3969.08
Iuliia S. Pinkovetskaia *
Natalya R. Aleksandrova **
Tatyana V. Treskova ***
Daniela S. Veas Iniesta ****
Abstract
Innovation policies are currently one of the main axes for
improving the eciency of national economies in developed
and developing countries. The innovation policy includes a
comprehensive system of activities. In Russia, increasing the
specic weight of commercial entities engaged in innovative
activities is among the most important objectives for the short
term. The aim of our study was to evaluate the use of innovation
based on taking into account the specic weight of organizations
that perform innovations in the total number of organizations operating in
the regions of Russia. Our study was based on ocial statistical information
on the 82 regions of Russia for 2017-2019. Economic-mathematical models
have been developed that describe the specic weight of the organizations
that implement innovation. There are no signicant changes in the
indicators for the years indicated. It has been shown that, to date, almost
one in ve organizations in the Russian Federation has used innovation in
their activities. In addition, they have identied the regions with maximum
and minimum values of the specic weightings of innovative organizations
for 2019.
Keywords: innovation policy; innovations; innovative organizations;
regions of Russia; functions of normal distribution.
* PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Economic analysis and state management, Ulyanovsk
State University, Ulyanovsk, Russia. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8224-9031. Email:
pinkovetskaia@gmail.com
** PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Economics, organization and management at the enterprise,
Ulyanovsk State Agrarian University named after P.A. Stolypin, Ulyanovsk, Russia, ORCID ID: http://
orcid.org/0000-0002-8711-8313. Email: aleksandrova_nr@mail.ru
*** PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Finance and credit, Ulyanovsk State Agrarian University
named after P.А. Stolypin, Ulyanovsk, Russia, ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7478-0095.
Email: treskova77@mail.ru
**** Researcher, Institute of Engineering economics and humanities, Moscow Aviation Institute (National
Research University), Moscow, Russia, ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8473-0670. Email:
danonik92@mail.ru
147
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 69 (Julio - Diciembre 2021): 146-163
Política de innovación moderna: datos de las regiones
de Rusia
Resumen
Las políticas de innovación son actualmente uno de los principales
ejes para mejorar la eciencia de las economías nacionales en los países
desarrollados y en desarrollo. La política de innovación incluye un sistema
integral de actividades. En Rusia, el aumento del peso especíco de las
entidades comerciales que realizan actividades innovadoras se incluye
entre los objetivos más importantes para el corto plazo. El objetivo de
nuestro estudio fue evaluar el uso de la innovación sobre la base de tener en
cuenta el peso especíco de las organizaciones que realizan innovaciones en
el número total de organizaciones que funcionan en las regiones de Rusia.
Nuestro estudio se basó en información Estadística ocial sobre las 82
regiones de Rusia para 2017-2019. Se han desarrollado modelos económico-
matemáticos que describen el peso especíco de las organizaciones
que implementan la innovación. No hay cambios signicativos en los
indicadores de los años indicados. Se ha demostrado que, hasta la fecha,
casi una de cada cinco organizaciones de la federación rusa ha utilizado
la innovación en sus actividades. Adicionalmente, se han identicado las
regiones con valores máximos y mínimos de las ponderaciones especícas
de las organizaciones innovadoras para 2019.
Palabras clave: política innovadora; innovación en Rusia;
organizaciones innovadoras; regiones de Rusia;
funciones de la distribución normal.
Introduction
Over the past three decades, there has been a strong view that politics
can inuence innovation (Schot and Steinmueller, 2018). Accordingly, the
term “innovation policy” has become widely used to describe the actions of
various governments that have a signicant impact on increasing the role
of innovation in economic performance and overcoming existing problems
(Edquist, 2011). It should be noted that previously, innovation policy was
described in research as a scientic, research, industrial or technological
policy. Accordingly, innovation policy is a broader concept and includes a
comprehensive holistic system of measures to inuence the state on the
economy in order to increase its eciency (Choi, 2017). Signicantly, in
addition to economic goals, it seeks to link scientic and technical activities
with political goals aimed at improving the well-being of people, the
sustainability of rms, and solving social problems (Geels, 2004).
148
Iuliia S. Pinkovetskaia, Natalya R. Aleksandrova, Tatyana V. Treskova y Daniela S. Veas Iniesta
Present Innovation Policy: Russian Regions Data
In most developed and developing countries, governments set specic
goals to enhance and support innovation (Howlett, 2011; OECD, 2010). At
the same time, the following goals are achieved:
- analysis of the impact of innovations on socio-economic development.
- identifying barriers that prevent the use of innovations, overcoming
which will increase the chances modernization of success in
production processes.
- measuring the eectiveness of dierent policy options in the eld of
innovation.
- comparative analysis of innovation activity in specic countries with
indicators for other countries.
It is important for investment policy to take into account the
characteristics characteristic of various types of economic activities
(Mazzucato and Penna, 2016). Such an approach should take into account
the exchange of technology between dierent industries and increase
macroeconomic stability by stimulating rm activity (Hausman and Rodrik,
2003).
Policies that address the challenges of increasing innovation should
involve a wide range of government and public organizations (Foray, 2018).
In recent years, Russia has formed high expectations for the growth of
innovation in the economy. Based on the introduction of innovations, it is
planned to move to more technological and ecient forms and methods
of activity of enterprises and organizations. In Russia, innovation policy
is currently determined by the provisions set out in Presidential Decree
No. 204 (2018). This document provides for an increase in the number of
organizations that have implemented innovations to fty percent of their
total number. The problem of increasing innovation activity is relevant in
modern conditions. It seems logical to develop innovations in all regions
of Russia. Next, our paper discusses the theoretical aspects of innovation
policy, the review of the scientic research carried out on this issue, the
methodology and design of our work and its results.
1. Theoretical frameworks
Innovation is now the main focus for addressing the pressing social and
economic challenges posed by policy makers in most countries. At the same
time, innovation policy requires governments to clearly formulate the tasks
that can be solved in the near future with the use of innovations. A policy that
ensures the trust of the majority of rms, which is valid for a long time and
does not experience frequent changes, seems to be appropriate (Fagerberg
149
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 69 (Julio - Diciembre 2021): 146-163
et al., 2016). An eective mechanism for transforming the economy
through innovation is to increase subsidies for research and development.
Such subsidies are particularly important for small businesses (Castellacci
and Mee Lie, 2015). In addition, tax burden reduction can be used (Larédo
et al., 2016). The right choice of policy mechanisms should be based on a
deep understanding of the existing barriers to the use of innovation. The
most dicult stage of using innovation is the survival of rms between
two stages: the formation of innovative ideas and their implementation.
Therefore, innovation policy should be based on supporting rms that
experiment and innovate at an early stage (Lauber and Jacobsson, 2015).
It should be noted that innovation policy should include not only high-
tech activities (for example, manufacturing), but also all other sectors of
national economies (Martin, 2013), including trade, services (Benaim and
Tether, 2016), as well as social activities (Van der Have and Rubalcaba,
2016). Innovation policy cannot rely solely on government support, but
must rely on the coordination of all economic actors, including private
enterprises (Kuhlmann and Rip, 2014).
The development of an eective innovation policy is a complex problem
associated with the increased participation of public administration bodies
and all interested sides in the formation of appropriate measures. Most of
the innovations that had a great impact on the eciency of the economic
sector were based on such approaches (Mazzucato and Semieniuk, 2017;
Edler and Fagerberg, 2017).
To date, three types of political instruments have emerged:
- support for basic research, the commercialization of which is dicult
in the near future. Therefore, the government should allocate the
necessary funds to universities and other research centers to ensure
innovation based on such research.
- assisting corporations and rms that develop new technological and
design work (Mohnen et al., 2017).
- increase of level of legal protection of property rights in developed
and used innovation.
The implementation of public policy instruments can be carried out
in regulatory, economic, and nancial ways (Borrás and Edquist, 2013;
Karakashian, 2015).
When forming an innovation policy, it is necessary to take into account
ve main elements (Fagerberg, 2017):
- knowledge that is formed by state research organizations and
universities, as well as supplemented by their own developments of
various rms.
150
Iuliia S. Pinkovetskaia, Natalya R. Aleksandrova, Tatyana V. Treskova y Daniela S. Veas Iniesta
Present Innovation Policy: Russian Regions Data
- skills, both highly specialized and general, that are formed in
educational processes, including professional training of people.
- availability of demand for innovative solutions by creating
appropriate markets, as well as using public procurement.
- state nancing of innovative initiatives of small enterprises and
individual entrepreneurs, as well as reducing the tax burden on these
categories of actors.
- improving the institutional support of economic processes based on
the promotion of innovation in legislative and regulatory acts, based
on the needs of the business community.
2. Literature review
Scientic research examines innovations related to changes in existing
knowledge, technological processes, the use of new technology and
other opportunities and resources in various types of economic activities
(Fagerberg et al., 2010), including low-tech and high-tech (Tunzelmann
and Acha, 2004), in the service sector (Rubalcaba et al., 2012).
The analysis of innovation policy is based on the assessment of national
innovation systems that ensure the interaction of innovation actors (Bergek
et al., 2008; Hekkert and Negro, 2009; Weber and Truer, 2017). In recent
years, the study of the features of national innovation systems has become
particularly relevant and has included an analysis of the factors that
aect the eectiveness of such systems (Liu and White, 2001; Smits and
Kuhlmann, 2004). Since 1991, the countries of the European Union have
been collecting information describing not only the innovation activities
of rms, but also the factors inuencing them (Smith, 2004). It should
be noted that the processes of mutual inuence of elements of national
innovation systems in most cases are stable, despite the changes occurring
in the regions (Pierson, 2000). Therefore, regional innovations can vary
greatly among themselves.
A number of scientic publications are devoted to the problem of
innovation activity in Russia. We discuss the most interesting of them, which
were published in 2019-2020. A brief description of these publications is
given in table 1.
151
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 69 (Julio - Diciembre 2021): 146-163
Authors Studied questions
Period,
years
Objects of
innovation
Type of
indicators
1 2 3 4 5
Petrikov
(2019)
Analysis of the
directions of innovation
activity, priority for
individual regions
2016-
2017
Regions of
the Central
Federal
District
indices
Podsolonko
et al. (2019)
Analysis of the
transfer of innovative
technologies by type of
economic activity
2010-
2016
Russia indices
Arkhipova et
al. (2019)
Assessment of the
volume of innovative
goods produced and
services rendered, and
work performed by
small businesses
2016
Russian
regions
absolut
Zhuravlev
(2020)
Assessment of the
degree of readiness of
the regional economic
complex for innovation
based on regression
analysis
2007-
2017
Regions of
the Central
and North-
Western
Federal
Districts
absolute
Belemaeva
and
Kalimullin
(2020)
Increase in the market
capitalization of a
company that regularly
innovated
2001-
2012
One
company
absolute
Deputatova
and
Perelman
(2020)
Analysis of innovative
technologies and
methods for attracting
buyers
2015-
2018
Trade sector
in Russia
absolute
Yezhov
(2020)
Dynamics of changes
in innovative activity of
enterprises. Business
participation in
scientic developments.
Barriers to innovation
2014-
2018
Russia
absolute,
specic
Kudryavtseva
(2020)
Institutional aspects of
state
support for innovations
in production
technologies
2012-
2015
Countries indices
Lipovka and
Arnautova
(2020)
Innovative development
based on information
technologies
2015-
2018
Gypermarket absolute
152
Iuliia S. Pinkovetskaia, Natalya R. Aleksandrova, Tatyana V. Treskova y Daniela S. Veas Iniesta
Present Innovation Policy: Russian Regions Data
Smirnova
(2020)
Dynamics of changes in
the share of innovative
enterprises. Factors that
reduce the eectiveness
of innovation
implementation
2000-
2014
Russia specic
Table 1. Scientic publications on innovation in Russia
Note: Achieved by the authors
Based on the information given in Table 1, it can be stated that the
problem of studying regional innovation activity is relevant in Russia. At
the same time, in theoretical and applied research to date, unjustiably
little attention has been paid to the comparative analysis of the activities
of organizations (enterprises) that carried out technological innovations
in the regions of Russia. In the same works where such an analysis was
available, the absolute values of innovation activity were compared, as a
rule, which is not always logical, since regions dier signicantly in the
number of economic entities, population, size and location.
3. Methodology and design
The purpose of our study was to assess the levels of innovation use based
on the share of innovative organizations in the total number of organizations
operating in the regions of Russia.
The main aspects of evaluation innovation activities of organizations
are presented in detail in the document (OECD, 2018). At the same time,
innovations are understood as the release of new or improved products
(goods and services) that are signicantly dierent from previously
produced products, as well as the introduction of new or more advanced
production processes in organizations that are signicantly dierent from
those that were previously used. Accordingly, innovations can be of two
types. The rst type of innovation involves better products and services, and
the second type is associated with changes in production processes. Both of
these types of innovations are united by such a concept as technological
innovation. It should be noted that innovations aimed at creating new
or improving existing production processes, in turn, are divided into the
following subspecies:
- changes in production technologies and the creation of new products
(goods and services) in various industries.
153
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 69 (Julio - Diciembre 2021): 146-163
- changes in logistics, transport, and distribution operations related to
the supply of organizations and the sale of nished products.
- improving the technology and organization of information processes.
- use of more eective methods of conducting and managing
production activities, including accounting and control issues.
- development of interaction of organizations with the external
environment.
- improving the eectiveness of personnel policy.
- improvement of methods and forms of marketing and pricing.
An analysis of the previous studies, including those shown in Table 1,
allowed us to conclude that it is advisable to use the share of innovative
organizations in the total number of all organizations in each of the regions
of Russia as an indicator of the level of innovation activity in the regions.
The research process included three stages. At the rst stage, the
initial empirical data describing the share of innovative organizations in
the total number of organizations operating in the regions of Russia were
formed. At the second stage, the distribution of specic values innovation
organizations across the country’s regions was evaluated. At the third stage,
a comparative analysis was carried out, during which the regions of the
country were established, in which the minimum and maximum values of
specic innovations were noted.
As initial information, the study used ocial statistics for 2017-2019 on
the share of innovative organizations in the total number of organizations
in 82 regions of Russia (Federal State Statistics Service, 2021).
In the economic and mathematical modeling used to estimate the
distribution of specic innovation values across the country’s regions,
the normal distribution function was used. The papers (Pinkovetskaia
and Slepova, 2018; Pinkovetskaia et al., 2021) presents a methodological
approach to the development and use of such a function to determine the
average value of the indicator for the considered regions, as well as the
range of its variation.
The study included testing the following three hypotheses:
- hypothesis 1 - the average values of indicators characterizing the
share of Russian organizations that implemented technological
innovations did not change signicantly over the period from 2017 to
2019.
- hypothesis 2 - the values of the share of innovative organizations in
the total number of organizations have a signicant dierentiation
across dierent regions.
154
Iuliia S. Pinkovetskaia, Natalya R. Aleksandrova, Tatyana V. Treskova y Daniela S. Veas Iniesta
Present Innovation Policy: Russian Regions Data
- hypothesis 3 - the territorial location of regions does not signicantly
aect the values of the share of innovative organizations in the total
number of organizations.
4. Results of calculation experiment
During the computational experiment, economic and mathematical
modeling was carried out on the basis of empirical data. The models that
describe the distribution of the three indicators for dierent years across 82
regions of Russia are shown below:
- the share of innovative organizations in the total number of
organizations by region in 2017, %
; (1)
- the share of innovative organizations in the total number of
organizations by region in 2018, %
; (2)
- the share of innovative organizations in the total number of
organizations by region in 2019, %
. (3)
The high quality of functions (1)-(3) was conrmed in the testing process
according to the Shapiro-Wilk, Pearson and Kolmogorov-Smirnov criteria.
5. Discussion
At the next stage of the study, patterns were identied that characterize
the distribution of the considered indicators. Column 2 (Table 2) shows the
data describing the average values of the indicators. The ranges in which
the values of the indicators for most regions are located are shown in the
third column of the table.
155
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 69 (Julio - Diciembre 2021): 146-163
Year Medium values Values for most regions
1 2 3
2017 18.87 11.41-26.33
2018 17.68 10.01-25.35
2019 18.50 10.56-26.44
Table 2. Values of indicators that characterize the share of innovative
organizations in the total number of organizations, %
Note: Achieved by the authors on the base of functions (1)-(3)
The data shown in Table 2 shows that the share of innovative
organizations in the total number of organizations operating in the regions
was in the range from 17.6% to 18.9% in 2017-2019. That is, on average,
in the regions under consideration, every fth organization participated
in innovation activities. It should be noted that during this period, no
signicant changes were observed, both in the average values and in the
values typical for most regions. That is, the rst hypothesis was conrmed:
To test hypothesis 2, the data presented in column 3 of Table 2 were
analyzed. The analysis showed a signicant dierentiation in the considered
regions of the values of indicators for all years. Therefore, the second
hypothesis was conrmed.
At the next stage, the regions where the maximum and minimum values
of each of the indicators were noted in 2019 were identied. At the same
time, the maximum and minimum values are those that correspondingly
exceed the upper limits of the ranges shown in the third column of Table
1 and are smaller than the lower limits of the ranges. The results of this
analysis are shown in Table 3. Along with the lists of regions, this table also
shows the division of the identied regions by their geographical location
and the specic weights of innovative organizations in the regions, which
are given in parentheses.
156
Iuliia S. Pinkovetskaia, Natalya R. Aleksandrova, Tatyana V. Treskova y Daniela S. Veas Iniesta
Present Innovation Policy: Russian Regions Data
Indicator Maximum values Minimum values
1 2 3
share of
innovative
organizations
in the total
number of
organizations
by region in
2019
Cities Moscow (45.1%),
St. Petersburg (33.7%),
Sevastopol (33.3%), the
Republics of Mordovia
(34.8%), Chuvash (33.6%),
Tatarstan (26.5%), Rostov
(32.0%), Ryazan (31.5%),
Tomsk (27.8%), Moscow
(27.5%), Belgorod (26.7%),
Nizhny Novgorod (26.6%)
regions. They are located in
the Central (four regions),
North-Western (one region),
Volga (four regions),
Southern (two regions), and
Siberian (one region) federal
districts.
The Republics of Karachay-
Cherkessia (10.1%), Altai
(9.7%), Tyva (8.8%), Kalmykia
(6.1%), North Ossetia – Alania
(4.8%), Dagestan (4%),
Chechnya (1.5%), Chukotka
Autonomous Okrug (9.4%),
Kemerovo (10.3%), Sakhalin
(10.0%), Orenburg (9.3%),
Kostroma (8.6%), Krasnodar
(10.3%) edge. They are located
in the Central (one region),
Volga (one region), Southern
(two regions), North Caucasus
(four regions), Siberian (three
regions), and Far Eastern (two
regions) federal districts.
Table 3. Regions with maximum and minimum values of indicators
Note: Achieved by the authors on the base of table 1
Table 3 provides information on the geographical location of regions
with high (column 2) and low (column 3) values of the share of innovative
organizations in 2019. The analysis of this information showed that there
was no correlation between the values of the indicators for the regions and
their territorial location. Thus, we can state the conrmation of the third
hypothesis.
Conclusion
The purpose of the study, which was to assess the levels of innovation
use based on the share of innovative organizations in the total number of
organizations in the regions of Russia for 2017-2019, was achieved. The
conclusions that have scientic novelty and originality include:
1. The methodology for estimating the share of innovative organizations
in the total number of organizations in the regions of Russia is
presented.
157
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 69 (Julio - Diciembre 2021): 146-163
2. Modeling of the distribution of indicators based on data for 2017,
2018, and 2019 was carried out.
3. It is proved that the values of the share of innovative organizations
in the total number of organizations have not changed signicantly
over the years considered.
4. It is shown that almost every fth organization in Russia showed
some innovative activity during the period under review.
5. It is shown that the values of the specic weights of innovative
organizations were signicantly dierentiated by region.
6. The regions with the maximum and minimum values of the share of
innovative organizations in their total number are identied.
7. It is proved that there is no inuence of the territorial location of
the regions on the minimum and maximum values of the considered
indicators.
8. It is shown that even the regions with the largest share of innovative
organizations (the cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg) have not yet
reached the level dened in the Presidential Decree No. 204 (2018).
The results of our work have a certain theoretical and practical
signicance. The methodological approach presented in the article to
estimate the share of innovative organizations in the total number of
organizations in the regions of Russia can be used in further research.
Namely, when monitoring the share of innovative organizations in the
regions and municipalities of Russia. The results of the work can be applied
in the current activities of state structures and public organizations, when
justifying measures to support innovation activities in accordance with
Presidential Decree No. 204 (2018).
In addition, the information obtained can be used to solve problems
of increasing the share of innovative organizations in regions where such
organizations are not widely developed. The results of the work are of
interest to leasing companies that ensure the introduction of new equipment
and advanced technologies. The new knowledge gained is of interest and
can be used in the educational process at universities.
Further research can be conducted to assess the industry characteristics
specic to innovative organizations. In the course of the study, there were
no restrictions on empirical data, since information was considered for all
82 regions of Russia.
158
Iuliia S. Pinkovetskaia, Natalya R. Aleksandrova, Tatyana V. Treskova y Daniela S. Veas Iniesta
Present Innovation Policy: Russian Regions Data
Bibliographic References
ARKHIPOVA, Marina Yuryevna; SIROTIN, Vyacheslav Pavlovich; AFONINA,
Vera Evgenyevna. 2019. “Modeling of innovative activity of small and
medium-sized businesses” In: Intelligence. Innovation. Investment.
No. 5, pp. 20-30. Available online. In: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.
asp?id=41328804. Consultation date: 10/12/2020.
BELEMAEVA, Anastasiya Vyacheslavovna; KALIMULLIN, Denis Maratovich.
2020. “Analysis of the signicance of innovation assessment in the
process of increasing the capitalization of an enterprise” In: Economics
and Business: theory and practice. No. 1-1, No. 59, pp. 35-38.
Available online. In: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=42359600.
Consultation date: 10/12/2020.
BENAIM, Mickael; TETHER, Bruce. 2016. “Innovation Policies for a Creative
Economy. Challenging the Dominance of STI and Research”, presented
at the EU-SPRI Conference, Lund, Sweden, 8-10 June.
BERGEK, Anna; JACOBSSON, Staan; CARLSSON, Bo; LINDMARK,
Sven; RICKNE, Annika. 2008. “Analyzing the Functional Dynamics
of Technological Innovation Systems: A Scheme of Analysis”
In: Research Policy. Vol. 37, pp. 407-429. Available online. In:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00487
3330700248X?via%3Dihub. Consultation date: 15/12/2020.
BORRAS, Susana; EDQUIST, Charles. 2013. “The choice of innovation policy
instruments” In: Technological forecasting and social change. Vol.
80(8), pp. 1513–1522. Available online. In: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/269630694. Consultation date: 15/12/2020.
CASTELLACCI, Fulcio; MEE LIE, Christine. 2015. “Do the Eects of R&D
Tax Credits Vary Across Industries? A Meta-regression Analysis” In:
Research Policy. Vol. 44(4), pp. 819-32. Available online. In: https://
isiarticles.com/bundles/Article/pre/pdf/41704.pdf. Consultation date:
21/12/2020.
CHOI, Hee Youl. 2017. “Japan’s Science & Technology Innovation Policy and
Implementation System” In: Science and Technology Policy. Vol. 27 (3),
pp. 44–49.
DEPUTATOVA, Elena Yurievna; PERELMAN, Mikhail Alexandrovich. 2020.
“Aspects of studying consumer behavior in the context of innovations
in retail” In: Economics and Business: theory and practice. No. 1-1, No.
59, pp. 101-104. Available online. In: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.
asp?id=44704407. Consultation date: 12/12/2020.
159
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 69 (Julio - Diciembre 2021): 146-163
EDLER, Jakob; FAGERBERG, Jan. 2017. “Innovation policy: what, why, and
how” In: Oxford Review of Economic Policy. Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 2-23.
Available online. In: https://academic.oup.com/oxrep/article-abst
ract/33/1/2/2972712?redirectedFrom=fulltext. Consultation date:
11/12/2020.
EDQUIST, Charles. 2011. “Design of Innovation Policy through Diagnostic
Analysis: Identication of Systemic Problems (or Failures)” In:
Industrial and Corporate Change. Vol. 20, pp. 1-29. Available online.
In: https://academic.oup.com/icc/article-abstract/20/6/1725/883257.
Consultation date: 16/12/2020.
FAGERBERG, Jan. 2017. “Innovation policy: Rationales, lessons and
challenges” In: Journal of Economic Surveys. April. pp. 1-20. Available
online. In: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303510349_
Innovation_policy_Rationales_lessons_and_challenges. Consultation
date: 16/12/2020.
FAGERBERG, Jan; LAESTADIUS, Staan; MARTIN, Ben. 2016. “The Triple
Challenge for Europe: The Economy, Climate Change, and Governance”
In: Challenge. Vol. 59, No. 3, pp. 178–204. Available online. In: https://
ideas.repec.org/p/sru/ssewps/2016-18.html. Consultation date:
16/12/2020.
FAGERBERG, Jan; SRHOLEC, Martin; VERSPAGEN, Bart. 2010. “The Role of
Innovation in Development” In: Review of Economics and Institutions.
Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 1-29. Available online. In: https://core.ac.uk/download/
pdf/296446081.pdf. Consultation date: 16/12/2020.
FEDERAL STATE STATISTICS SERVICE. 2021. Science and innovation.
Available online. In: https://rosstat.gov.ru/folder/14477?print=1.
Consultation date: 15/01/2021.
FORAY, Dominique. 2018. “Smart specialization strategies as a case of mission
oriented policy – a case study on the emergence of new policy practices”
In: Industrial and Corporate Change. Vol. 27, No. 5, pp. 817-832. Available
online. In: https://academic.oup.com/icc/article-abstract/27/5/817/50
91000?redirectedFrom=fulltext. Consultation date: 15/12/2020.
GEELS, Frank. 2004. “From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical
systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and
institutional theory” In: Research policy. Vol. 33(6-7), pp. 897–920.
Available online. In: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/
abs/pii/S0048733304000496. Consultation date: 15/12/2020.
160
Iuliia S. Pinkovetskaia, Natalya R. Aleksandrova, Tatyana V. Treskova y Daniela S. Veas Iniesta
Present Innovation Policy: Russian Regions Data
HAUSMAN, Ricardo; RODRIK, Dani. 2003. “Economic development as self-
discovery” In: Journal of Development Economics. Vol. 72, No. 2, pp.
603–633. Available online. In: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/abs/pii/S030438780300124X. Consultation date: 22/12/2020.
HEKKERT, Marco; NEGRO, Simona. 2009. “Functions of Innovation Systems
as a Framework to Understand Sustainable Technological Change:
Empirical Evidence for Earlier Claims” In: Technological Forecasting
and Social Change. Vol. 76, pp. 584-594. Available online. In: https://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0040162508000905.
Consultation date: 22/12/2020.
HOWLETT, Michael. 2011. Designing Public Policy: Principles and Instruments.
Routledge. London, UK.
KARAKASHIAN, Sonia. 2015. “A software patent war: The eects of patent
trolls on startup companies, innovation, and entrepreneurship” In:
Hastings Bussiness Law Journal. No. 11, pp. 119–156. Available online.
In: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_business_law_journal/
vol11/iss1/6/. Consultation date: 22/12/2020.
KUDRYAVTSEVA, Svetlana. 2020. “Technological readiness of industry for
open innovations” In: Economics in industry. Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 48-58.
Available online. In: https://ecoprom.misis.ru/jour/article/view/821.
Consultation date: 22/12/2020.
KULHMANN, Stefan; RIP, Arie. 2014. “The Challenge of Addressing Grand
Challenges”, Brussels. Available online. In: https://research.utwente.nl/
en/publications/the-challenge-of-addressing-grand-challenges-a-think-
piece-on-how. Consultation date: 10/12/2020.
LAREDO, Philippe; KOHLER, Christian; RAMMER, Christian. 2016. “The
Impact of Fiscal Incentives for R&D” In: J. Edler, P. Cunningham, A.
Gok, and P. Shapira (eds), Handbook of Innovation Policy Impact,
Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, pp. 18-53. Available online. In: https://www.
elgaronline.com/view/edcoll/9781784711849/9781784711849.00009.
xml. Consultation date: 10/12/2020.
LAUBER, Volkmar; JACOBSSON, Staan. 2015. “Lessons from Germany’s
Energiewende” In: J. Fagerberg, S. Laestadius, and B. R. Martin (eds),
The Triple Challenge for Europe: Economic Development, Climate
Change and Governance, Oxford University Press, pp. 173-204.
LIPOVKA, Nina; ARNAUTOVA, Elena. 2020. “Inuence of innovations on the
enterprise economy” In: Actual problems and prospects of economic
development: Russian and foreign experience. No. 1, No. 26, pp. 46-
161
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 69 (Julio - Diciembre 2021): 146-163
49. Available online. In: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=42387035.
Consultation date: 10/12/2020.
LIU, Xielin; WHITE, Steven. 2001. “Comparing innovation systems: a
framework and application to China’s transitional context” In: Research
Policy. Vol. 30, pp. 1091-1114. Available online. In: https://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048733300001323.
Consultation date: 10/12/2020.
MARTIN, Ben. 2013. “Innovation Studies: An Emerging Agenda” In: J.
Fagerberg, B. R. Martin, and E. Sloth Andersen (eds) In: Innovation
Studies: Evolution and Future Challenges, Oxford, Oxford University
Press, pp.168-186.
MARTIN, Ben. 2016. “R&D Policy Instruments - A Critical Review of What
We Do and Don’t Know” Industry and Innovation. Vol. 23, pp. 157-176.
Available online. In: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13
662716.2016.1146125. Consultation date: 10/12/2020.
MAZZUCATO, Mariana; PENNA, Caetano. 2016. “Beyond market failures: the
market creating and shaping roles of state investment banks” In: Journal
of Economic Policy Reform. Vol. 19(4), pp. 305–326. Available online.
In: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17487870.2016.121
6416. Consultation date: 10/12/2020.
MAZZUCATO, Mariana; SEMIENIUK, Gregor. 2017. “Public Financing of
Innovation: New Questions” In: Oxford Review of Economic Policy.
Vol. 33(1), pp. 24–48. Available online. In: https://academic.oup.com/
oxrep/article/33/1/24/2972707. Consultation date: 10/12/2020.
MOHNEN, Pierre; VANKAN, Arthur; VERSPAGEN, Bart. 2017. “Evaluating
the Innovation Box Tax Policy Instrument in the Netherlands, 2007-13”
In: Oxford Review of Economic Policy. Vol. 33(1), pp. 141-156. Available
online. In: https://academic.oup.com/oxrep/article-abstract/33/1/141/
2972709?redirectedFrom=fulltext. Consultation date: 10/12/2020.
OECD. 2010. Measuring Innovation: A New Perspective, OECD Publishing.
OECD iLibrary. Measuring Innovation: A New Perspective. Available
online. In: oecd-ilibrary.org. Consultation date: 12/12/2020.
OECD/Eurostat. 2018. Oslo Manual 2018: Guidelines for Collecting, Reporting
and Using Data on Innovation. The Measurement of Scientic,
Technological and Innovation Activities, OECD Publishing, Paris/
Eurostat, Luxembourg. 258 p.
PETRIKOV, Anreu Vladimirovich. 2019. “Features of innovative development
of the regions of the Central Federal District of the Russian Federation”
162
Iuliia S. Pinkovetskaia, Natalya R. Aleksandrova, Tatyana V. Treskova y Daniela S. Veas Iniesta
Present Innovation Policy: Russian Regions Data
In: The economy of sustainable development. No. 1, No. 37, pp. 64-66.
Available online. In: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=37274240.
Consultation date: 18/12/2020.
PIERSON, Paul. 2000. “Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study
of Politics” In: The American Political Science Review. Vol. 94, pp. 251-
267. Available online. In: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2586011?seq=1.
Consultation date: 18/12/2020.
PINKOVETSKAIA, Iuliia; LEBEDEV, Anton; ROZHKOV, Mikhail; BEREZINA,
Natalia. 2021. “Assessment of business infrastructure in 2018” In:
Cuestiones Políticas. Vol. 39, No. 68, pp. 385-396. Available online.
In: https://produccioncienticaluz.org/index.php/cuestiones/article/
view/35422/37523. Consultation date: 18/01/2021.
PINKOVETSKAIA, Iuliia; SLEPOVA, Vladislava. 2018. “Estimation of Fixed
Capital Investment in SMEs: the Existing Dierentiation in the Russian
Federation” In: Business Systems Research. No. 9, No. 1, pp. 65-78.
Available online. In: https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/bsrj-2018-
0006. Consultation date: 17/12/2020.
PODSOLONKO, Vladimir; PODSOLONKO, Elena; SLEPOKUROV, Aleksandr.
2019. “Management of innovations and technology transfer for
improving the eciency of the economy” In: Scientic Bulletin: nance,
banks, investments. No. 2, No. 47, pp. 136-151. Available online. In:
https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=41324800. Consultation date:
17/12/2020.
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 204. 2018. “On National Goals and Strategic
Objectives for the Development of the Russian Federation for the
period up to 2024”. Available online. In: http://www.kremlin.ru/acts/
bank/43027. Consultation date: 17/12/2018.
RUBALCABA, Luis; MICHEL, Stefan; SUNDBO, Jon; BROWN, Stephen;
REYNOSO, Javier. 2012. “Shaping, Organizing, and Rethinking Service
Innovation: A Multidimensional Framework” In: Journal of Service
Management. Vol. 23, No. 5, pp. 696-715. Available online. In: https://
www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/09564231211269847/
full/html. Consultation date: 17/12/2020.
SCHOT, Johan; STEINMUELLER, Edward. 2018. “New directions for
innovation studies: missions and transformations” In: Research
Policy. Vol. 47, pp. 1583-1584. Available online. In: https://www.
researchgate.net/publication/327584341_New_directions_for_
innovation_studies_Missions_and_transformations. Consultation
date: 17/12/2020.
163
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 69 (Julio - Diciembre 2021): 146-163
SMIRNOVA, Аnn. 2020. “Innovations as the main tool for improving the
competitiveness of Russian business structures” In: Science-practical
research. No. 1-3, No. 24, pp. 237-243. Available online. In: https://www.
elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=42359487. Consultation date: 17/12/2020.
SMITH, Keith. 2004. “Measuring Innovation” In: Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D.,
Nelson, R. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford, Oxford
University Press, pp. 148-178.
SMITS, Ruud; KUHLMANN, Stefan. 2004. “The rise of systemic instruments in
innovation policy” In: International Journal of Foresight and Innovation
Policy. Vol. 1, pp. 4-32. Available online. In: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/200465408_The_rise_of_systemic_instruments_
in_innovation_policy_Int_J_Foresight_Innov_Policy_14-32.
Consultation date: 10/12/2020.
TUNZELMANN, Nick; ACHA, Virginia. 2004. “Innovation in “Low-tech”
Industries” In: J. Fagerberg, D. Mowery, and R. Nelson (eds), The Oxford
Handbook of Innovation, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 407-432.
VAN DER HAVE, Robert; RUBALCABA, Luis. 2016. “Social Innovation
Research: An Emerging Area of Innovation Studies?” In: Research
Policy. Vol. 45(9), pp. 1923–1935. Available online. In: https://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004873331630107X.
Consultation date: 10/12/2020.
WEBER, Matthias; TRUFFER, Bernhard. 2017. “Moving Innovation Systems
Research to the Next Level: Towards an Integrative Agenda” In: Oxford
Review of Economic Policy. Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 101–121. Available online.
In: https://academic.oup.com/oxrep/article-abstract/33/1/101/297271
3?redirectedFrom=fulltext. Consultation date: 10/12/2020.
YEZHOV, Albert Yurievich. 2020. “Modern problems of implementation and
management of innovations in the Russian Federation” In: Innovations
and investments. No. 2, pp. 12-14. Available online. In: http://innovazia.
ru/archive/?ELEMENT_ID=24903. Consultation date: 10/12/2020.
ZHURAVLEV, Denis Maksimovich. 2020. “Assessment of the technological
readiness of the regional economy for the perception of innovations” In:
Economic revival of Russia. No. 1, No. 63, pp. 138-147. Available online.
In: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=42543840. Consultation date:
21/12/2020.
www.luz.edu.ve
www.serbi.luz.edu.ve
www.produccioncienticaluz.org
Esta revista fue editada en formato digital y publicada
en julio de 2021, por el Fondo Editorial Serbiluz,
Universidad del Zulia. Maracaibo-Venezuela
Vol.39 Nº 69
