Problems and prospects for the development of innovation activity in the Russian experience of innovative development: problems and prospects Problems and prospects of innovative activity of Russian enterprises

Annotation. The article deals with the problem innovation activities and its development in the Stavropol Territory. Attention is drawn to the importance of innovation for the development of the modern economy, the conditions for the development of innovation at the regional level are indicated. A statistical analysis of the determinants of innovation activity in the Stavropol Territory has been carried out, and the main directions for realizing the region's innovative potential have been presented.

Keywords: innovations, innovative activity, investments, innovative development, technological equipment, infrastructure.

Innovation activity is understood as the process of development and implementation of innovations, which is a cyclic, discrete algorithm and is defined as a set of structurally interrelated actions.

Innovative activity is one of the basic foundations for the development of the modern economy due to the fact that it allows you to optimize it, both in the context of maximizing the results of activities and in the context of reducing costs. good example The importance of innovation is energy saving and infrastructure projects in the field of rational lighting, which allow maximizing the performance of several sectors of the economy at once. It can be stated that the development of innovative activity, at various levels from the region to an individual enterprise, is the foundation for increasing competitiveness, and hence economic efficiency.

World experience allows us to conclude that the most important is the development of innovative activity at the regional level, since this allows us to update economic growth and in the future create a whole cluster of economic entities with high competitiveness. As an example of such clusters, one can cite advanced development zones, such as California. However, in order for the development of innovative activity to be effective, it is necessary to comply with a number of conditions, primarily related to the sphere of management, investment, support for innovative development by the state and interested commercial and non-commercial structures.

The most important conditions on which the effective development of innovative activity at the regional level is based are:

Policy Implementation social partnership;

No shortage of labor resources;

Sufficiency of investments;

Satisfactory condition of the infrastructure;

Management efficiency .

Compliance with these conditions, in the course of the development of innovative activity, allows leveling the regional economic backwardness, disproportions in economic sectors, and solving the problems of lack of production capacity, inefficiency and obsolescence of processing industries and other significant problems for Russian economy. First of all, this is achieved through the creation and expansion of markets (for example, the introduction of innovations related to augmented reality), as well as the creation of fundamentally new products and technological principles (for example, the emergence of smart materials, etc.)

Let's consider the problem of development of innovative activity and innovative potential within the Stavropol Territory. The Stavropol Territory is a region with developed industrial and agricultural complexes, transport and telecommunications infrastructure. There is a significant concentration of universities in the region, a favorable geopolitical situation, which creates prerequisites for accelerating the formation of an innovative type of economy and a real opportunity to become the center of innovative activity of the entire North Caucasus Federal District. The foregoing allows us to conclude that the SC d as a whole corresponds to the previously described conditions for effective development innovative activity.

However, the needs for innovative development many times exceed the resources available from the budget of the UK, as well as extrabudgetary funds that can be allocated in the context of the innovative development of the region. This thesis is confirmed by the data of Rosstat, based on which the total depreciation of infrastructure in the period from 2014 to 2017 increased by more than 20%, while the growth of fixed assets and depreciation of production in the region demonstrates dynamics close to zero.

In order to determine the most optimal ways to solve the problem, we will conduct a statistical analysis of the parameters associated with innovation, in particular business activity, economic growth, the level of technological equipment of economic entities and infrastructure, and the features of investments in the UK. For purposes statistical analysis we used Spearman's rank correlation criterion, as well as factor analysis of the declared data array. results factor analysis are presented in tables 1-2. It should be noted right away that the considered factors explain ≈ 92% of the variance of the considered array.

Table 1

The structure of factors that have a significant impact on the development of innovation activity in the middle class

Factors	Factor Structure	Share of variance
	1. Volume of investments and funds; 2.Nature of investments (based on the source); 3.Business activity.
	1. Availability of markets; 2. Aggregate demand in available markets; 3. Efficiency of promotion.
	1. Technological equipment; 2. Depreciated infrastructure 3. Funds allocated for depreciation.

Based on the data presented in Table 2, we can conclude that the most significant factor influencing innovation activity in the UK is the availability of investments and funds, primarily investments at the local and federal levels. It is investments that determine business activity, which is extremely important for innovative development. This thesis is also explained by the fact that since 2014 there has been a significant drop in foreign investment, due to the difficult political situation, which dictates the need to develop new approaches in state policy to investment activities.

The second most important factor is the level of access of business entities to markets with high aggregate demand, as well as the effectiveness of promoting their goods and services. This parameter in the UK is quite favorable, despite some difficulties in entering the European and other foreign markets. An example is the Energomera Concern, whose activities were almost not affected in the period from 2014 to 2018.

The third most important factor is the technological equipment and its dynamics, the state of the infrastructure. This factor has the lowest rank, based on the impact on innovation activity, requires attention due to the previously noted problems in this area, which are recorded in the UK.

The above is confirmed in the course of the correlation analysis of the factors considered, with the effectiveness of innovation activity, the data are presented in Table 2. The table presents the results of the correlation analysis, which allow us to conclude that in order to optimize innovation activity, it is necessary to focus on investments and issues of infrastructure of the middle class, development business activity, updating social partnership as a priority of state policy.

table 2

Correlation analysis of the relationship between innovation activity in the middle class and the declared factors

p≤0.05 - *, p≤0.01 - **.

It is important to note that it is almost impossible to implement an innovative update on the old technological base. That is why the way out is to carry out an innovative update on a fundamentally new basis for those industries and sectors where it is possible to master the production of fundamentally new products, competitiveness and expansion of sales in the market, in order to use additional income to expand the front of a technological breakthrough and industries. This requires the definition of innovation priorities for 10-15 years, built on the basis of flexible planning. This experience proved to be very successful during the economic breakthrough of the Ruhr region and the creation of Fukushima as a high-tech cluster.

Based on the analysis carried out, the following directions for the development of innovation activity in the middle class can be distinguished.

The development of a common infrastructure, as well as subsidies and state support for the development of biotechnologies, the pharmaceutical, chemical industries, agro-industrial complex, nanotechnologies, microelectronics and materials for the electronics industry, alternative energy, digital economy sectors, as sectors with the greatest growth potential in the UK.

Pursuing a targeted policy in the field of formation of a human resource, specialized specialists in the industries declared by you, as well as specialists in the field of innovation management.

In our opinion, the presented development trajectory the best way will allow realizing the innovative potential of the UK.

Bibliography:

Aidinova A. T. Small business in the agro-industrial complex: Methodological aspect of the study // Economics Agriculture Russia. 2014. No. 12 P. 44–48
Kosinova E. A., Belkina E. N., Kazarova A. Ya. Pricing: theory and practice Stavropol, 2012 - 166 p.
Small innovative business: tutorial/ S. V. Valdaitsev, N. N. Molchanov, K. Petzoldt. - Moscow: Prospect, 2011. - 536 p.
Management of innovative projects: textbook / [V. L. Popov and others]. - Moscow: Infra-M, 2011. - 334 p.
UFSGS NCFD http://stavstat.gks.ru/

The last two decades for Russia are characterized by attempts to move into a post-industrial society. This is expressed in the growth of the influence of science on socio-economic development, the intensification of the processes of creation and dissemination of knowledge, as well as the intensification of innovative activity. In all this, the primary role is played by research organizations - the main generators of new knowledge.

The search for new knowledge is a key stage in scientific and technological progress, and with a sufficient variety of modern institutional forms of production and implementation of knowledge, science is still its main source and carrier. Its core is legally independent specialized research organizations, namely, scientists involved in their research and development. research activities.

According to official statistics, from 1990 to 2005 the number of scientists in Russia decreased from 1.119 million to 381 thousand people, that is, almost three times. To this number, it is necessary to add graduate students. Now there are 72,000 state-funded places for graduate students across the country, with an enrollment of 26,000 per year. There are approximately 450 thousand researchers in total. However, even those researchers who are on the staff of numerous research institutes are not ready to fully engage in research activities. Thus, out of 450 thousand specialists, only 100 thousand spend more than half of their working time on scientific work and the rest earn money in commercial organizations.

If we pay attention to the migration of scientific personnel, then in internal migration the main flow of scientific personnel is directed to business, private enterprise and government structures, where people with a good education are especially needed. This happens because scientific activity in Russia is not very profitable, because science is what makes knowledge out of money, and innovation is what makes money out of knowledge.

As a result of external migration, the United States has been the main consumer of Russian scientists for almost 20 years. They account for about 30% of emigrated specialists. Germany receives 20% of Russian scientists, in Israel they make up about 40% of the total number of scientists. However, in recent years, the geography of distribution of Russia's scientific potential has begun to change. The countries of the East show great interest in our researchers in connection with the development of nuclear programs. Many Russian nuclear scientists work in Iran, China and South Korea, North Korea.

As mentioned earlier, the main reason for the migration of Russian scientists is insufficient funding. At the end of 2009 Russia spends about $2 billion on research and development, which is almost 4 times less than in China, 7 times less than Japan and 17 times less than the USA.

According to government statements, 200 billion rubles are allocated for science in Russia in 2010: 80 billion for fundamental science and 120 billion for applied science. You can calculate whether it is a lot or a little. It is most convenient to count in "postgraduate/years". As a guideline, the salary of a graduate student can be set at 45,000 rubles. ($1500, €1150) is less than in most European countries, but close to Spain and South Korea. In a year with taxes (13% personal income tax, 26.2 -34% UST) and overhead costs (15%), this turns out to be 1 million rubles. That is, there is some competitiveness. For successful development science, the salaries of employees (scientists, engineers, etc.) should be higher; you need to consider at least 1.5 million rubles. per person per year. In total, we get: 381 thousand scientists * 1.5 million rubles. +72 thousand graduate students*1 million rubles = 650 billion rubles. per year, only for salaries and invoices (in fact, the maintenance of the "office"). If we add to this the costs of equipment, travel, organization of conferences, etc., then overall budget should be 1 trillion. rub. per year, i.e. should be 5 times more than planned.

However, it is not only the state that should be blamed for the low level of development of the Russian innovative business, there is also a share of the blame for the extremely low level of R&D funding in Russia by the private sector. There is no demand for innovation in the country. The share of expenses for technological innovations in our industry is 1.2%, including the mining industry - only 0.8%. Expenses Russian business R&D accounts for only about 0.3% of GDP (7-10 times less than in developed countries).

In terms of government spending on R&D per capita ($86), Russia lags behind the leaders by 2-4 times, and in terms of private spending - 10-20 times. Even China, with its huge population, is already almost one and a half times ahead of Russia in terms of per capita spending on R&D by the private sector.

Russia is the only country in the world where the share of spending on civilian science (0.4% of GDP) is less than on defense R&D (0.6%). But even this is not able to ensure the maintenance of a military-strategic balance with the United States, Europe, and China. The degradation of the scientific and technical complex has led to the fact that, despite the growth of the state defense order, the production of weapons has fallen to a miserable level. The military-industrial complex cannot become an oasis of technological progress against the background of the growing primitivization of the Russian economy as a whole. After all, in the United States for several decades there has been an overflow of the most modern technologies from the civilian sector to the military, and not vice versa.

As far as R&D enterprises are concerned, in modern Russia among them are dominated by state unitary enterprises(GUP) and state institutions, and their ability to transfer the results of scientific and technical activities (RSTD) and the creation of new companies is limited. This leads to serious difficulties in the commercialization of their research and development results, complicates the establishment of new technology companies and, accordingly, hinders the development of public-private partnerships.

Currently, more than 80 technology parks, even more innovation and technology centers, more than 100 technology transfer centers, 10 national innovation and analytical centers, 86 scientific and technical innovation centers, over 120 business incubators, 15 innovation consulting centers and other organizations are registered in Russia. innovation infrastructure. A total of 688 innovation infrastructure organizations.

Only 9.4% implement innovations Russian enterprises. Even in Eastern European countries, there are at least twice as many innovative enterprises, and in Germany, for example, 8 times. The share of innovative products in our country is only 5.5%. Even in the production of aircraft and spacecraft, only 34.3% of enterprises are engaged in innovation. Only 2.3% of industrial enterprises were engaged in marketing innovations in 2006. The industry leading by this parameter among the low-tech ones is the production of cigarettes (8.6%), which is explained by "intense competition". The highest share of innovators among large enterprises integrated into holdings, as well as among not very large high-tech companies. But in small business there are very few innovators - even among those involved in high-tech business. Innovation is not very efficient. For 1995-2006 the annual costs of innovation have doubled, and the volume of innovative products - by only 49%.

PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF INNOVATIVE ACTIVITIES OF THE ENTERPRISE

I. S. KONDRASHOVA, E. V. KIREEVA

The article considers the environment for the functioning of domestic enterprises, defines the range of main problems and ways to solve them, as well as the prospects for the development of innovative activities of the enterprise.

Key words: problems, prospects, enterprise, innovations, innovative development.

In order to intensify economic development and increase the competitiveness of the Russian economy, it is now important to ensure not so much a quantitative growth of macroeconomic indicators as the creation of favorable opportunities for the use of scientific, technical, production, resource and intellectual potential. This is due to the development of the innovation sphere. And therefore, one of the most urgent macroeconomic tasks is the study of the problems of innovative activity of an enterprise and the development of tools to stimulate innovative activity as industrial enterprises, and organizations of a scientific, technical and scientific and educational profile, the creation of a developed innovative infrastructure that contributes to the qualitative improvement of innovative processes.

In the last decade, innovative business has shown significant potential. The growth rates of large and small innovative enterprises are quite high, however, the lack of competitiveness of their products in comparison with Western standards often prevents the penetration of domestic goods into the international market.

Problems of innovation activity are becoming more and more relevant. This is a reflection of the growing understanding by society that the renewal of Russia, all spheres of its life, is impossible without innovations in production, management, and finance. It is innovations that lead to the renewal of the market, improvement of quality and expansion of the range of goods and services, creation of new methods of production, marketing of products, and improvement of management efficiency.

The main subjects of the innovation process are the primary links economic system- enterprises that, by the entire logic of the functioning of the market mechanism, are put forward at the center of those necessary changes that are associated with the interest of society in highly effective innovations.

In this regard, theoretical research in the field of innovative activity of enterprises has intensified in recent years, however, many questions still await their solution. Therefore, the study of the mechanisms for effective management of the innovative activity of an enterprise in modern market conditions is up to date.

Innovative activity is often interpreted as an activity associated with the use of high technologies. Increasingly, business leaders say that the company is supporting innovation.

Many enterprises try in one form or another to carry out innovative activities on their own, specially creating for this purpose subsidiaries or innovation centers designed to promote the promotion and use of innovative products. Specialists who understand patent and licensing activities, intellectual property protection and other components necessary for the commercial use of innovations are hired.

One of the most important problems in innovative activity is the problem of organizing this activity, that is, the problem of management. An analysis of the activities of a number of enterprises allows us to conclude that the increasing importance

acquires the quality of management. The qualification of a manager, leader becomes the most important factor in ensuring the effectiveness of the innovation process. In this situation, the manager is required to master the entire set of management tools. As a rule, the problem of quality management is solved by attracting highly qualified managers from the outside and continuous staff training. However, problems of a different kind arise here - there is an increasing shortage of high-level managers, and besides, they are very expensive. Staff training is very often not effective enough.

The reason is that the training of managerial personnel is carried out according to the principle of teaching individual components of management and, very rarely, the management procedure itself. This is also due to the lack of real managerial experience of the majority of university teachers. Of course for successful implementation The goals of a particular project require knowledge in a specific subject area, but knowledge of the basics of management, organization theory, marketing, and personnel management is also necessary. Does it mean that knowledge of these components of management ensures high-quality management of innovative activities? Naturally not, because almost no one anywhere teaches a manager the ability to build their managerial actions in time, based on the current situation.

Today, among the many socio-economic problems, the problem of intensifying innovative activity in its acuteness comes to one of the first places. Many problems of the formation of an innovative market have taken on a deep character. An attempt to introduce a liberal model in conditions of a qualitatively different cost and price structure compared to the West led to the fact that the restructuring of the economy took on a regressive character. This objectively leads to the curtailment of knowledge-intensive industries, the elimination of incentives for highly productive labor, and the innovative activity of Russian enterprises is declining almost everywhere.

By now, the need to develop mechanisms for the activation and development of industries of the industrial complex based on the effective use of their innovative potential has become obvious.

Enterprises face the challenge not only to remain a leading link in the industry, but also to be competitive both domestically and internationally. foreign market. The leading role is played

innovations that can play a key role in activating structural transformations in economic recovery, the stable functioning of industrial enterprises.

Innovations have an impact on the national economy primarily through science and technology policy. This contributes to the expansion of production, raising its technical level, preventing excessive moral and physical depreciation of fixed assets, and ensuring the production of competitive products.

An analysis of the state of innovative activity of enterprises indicates that its low level is caused by a structurally regressive decline in production in the context of the destruction of the old mechanisms of the functioning of the economy with the slow formation of new ones. market mechanisms regulation and self-regulation of the economy.

Solving the problems of increasing the innovative activity of domestic enterprises requires an integrated approach, a combination of macroeconomic policy measures with measures at the microeconomic level, nationwide actions with the initiatives of the enterprises themselves. It is important to combine economic, organizational and administrative-legislative measures.

For Russia, the functioning of the subjects of innovation activity is complicated by the specific characteristics of this area: the underdevelopment of the system of project and venture financing, the lack of its own research, experimental and industrial development base, and an acute shortage of specialists in innovation management. In order to solve these problems, the authorities state power implement regulatory impacts on the innovation system through the development and implementation of measures state support subjects of innovative activity on the basis of consolidation financial resources regional budget and extrabudgetary sources.

It is important to note that many regions of Russia, in general, having a high scientific and technical potential, nevertheless, have an insufficient level of development of the regional innovation system, which is a consequence of:

1) insufficient innovative attractiveness of the innovation sphere in comparison with other sectors of the economy;

2) imperfect system vocational training personnel for the innovation sphere;

3) technological backwardness and, as a result, low competitiveness of products of some branches of engineering;

4) underdevelopment of the sphere of small innovative enterprises that have the necessary flexibility for rapidly changing market conditions;

5) lack of a mechanism for the implementation of the results of intellectual activity in the real sector of high-tech production;

6) insufficient level of infrastructure development of the regional innovation system

Among the main directions for solving the identified problems should include increasing the efficiency of managing the development of enterprises, and above all, ensuring a balance between current and strategic innovation activities, increasing the validity of its choice. promising directions, risk reduction, adaptation of enterprise development management to the conditions of changing environment.

Small innovative enterprises, as the most flexible, adaptive and creative organizational form, should be indicator structures that determine the directions of innovative development and generate innovative ideas. Based foreign experience such enterprises are of great interest large companies who buy them together with innovative ideas. Unfortunately, today we are forced to state a low level of innovative activity of small enterprises, and, therefore, it is not yet possible to use this component to the full extent of its potential as a factor in the development of a regional innovation system.

we, including financial, informational, consulting, marketing support;

7) lack of an examination system, competitive selection and venture financing of scientific and technical projects that ensure the creation of high-tech products;

8) the absence of venture organizations operating on the principles of project financing and management of innovative projects.

Analyzing the operating environment of domestic enterprises, we see a certain range of main problems and directions for their solution (Table 1).

Creation and development of an innovative environment - large-scale and the most difficult task, which cannot be solved without well-thought-out and coordinated effective actions on the part of the authorities, the economic and scientific communities.

Therefore, when organizing innovation activity, it would be correct to proceed from the fact that although market economy more receptive to innovation than directive, it does not happen automatically. Requires well-developed straight lines and feedback between all participants in the innovation process.

Consistency is key to success due to limited financial and human resources and limited time. Only if there is a coordinated plan can dispersion of efforts, duplication of functions by different actors and project downtime be avoided. The economic community, represented by industrial enterprises, must responsibly and professionally express their desire to develop an effective dialogue with the authorities to identify profitable areas.

Table 1

The system of the main problems of the functioning of domestic enterprises and ways to solve them

Problems Directions of solutions

1) Disadvantage financial resources, which determines the search for sources of financing and rational use of those available due to the validity of the choice of promising areas of innovation; 2) Lack of balance in the distribution of enterprise resources between current and strategic innovation activities; 3) Increased riskiness due to both the small scale of the enterprise and the uncertainty of the result; 4) The need for systematic and technological re-equipment of production modern equipment; 5) Limited referral options marketing activities; 6) Imperfection of personnel motivation, given the increased importance of individual specialists 1) Ensuring a balance between current and strategic innovation activities; 2) Increasing the validity of the choice of promising areas of innovation; 3) Providing conditions for reducing the risk of innovative activities of MNEs; 4) Determination of rational financial and temporal conditions for enhancing innovation activity; 5) Assessment of the state and planning of innovative activity of MNEs; 6) Functional and structural description and assignment of responsibility for the implementation of the MNE management process

of the development of an innovative mechanism in the field and resource support for economic growth.

In conclusion, I would like to note that the state and the economic community act as partners in joint actions that regulate the growth of activity in the innovative activity of an enterprise. Coordination of the joint efforts of the state and the economic community is one of the most important organizational tasks, which will allow solving the problems existing in the innovative activity of enterprises and thereby ensuring sustainable innovative development of the Russian economy.

Literature

1. Galstyan M. V. Development of innovative activity of enterprises in the conditions of market relations: on the example of the machine-building complex of the Amur region: dis. ... cand. economic sciences M., 2005.

2. Kovalenko A. A., Tsurikov S. V. The system of factors of innovative development of the enterprise // Siberian financial school. 2008. No. 2.

3. Mamontov VD, Osadchaya TG Russian entrepreneurship: trends towards a new economy // Socio-economic phenomena and processes. Tambov. 2011. No. 9.

PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS OF DEVELOPMENT OF INNOVATIVE ACTIVITY OF THE ENTERPRISE

I. S. Kondrashova, Ye. V. Kireyeva

In article the environment of functioning of the domestic enterprises is considered, the circle of the main problems and a way of their decision, and also the prospect of development of innovative activity of the enterprise is defined.

Key words: problems, prospects, enterprise, innovations, innovative development.

The statistics presented in the previous paragraph clearly proves that Russia, despite its great scientific and technical potential, does not occupy a leading position in the world in terms of innovative development. Among the main negative trends in the problems of development of the innovation sector in Russia, the following should be highlighted:

Erroneous definition of the priority object of state support in the field of innovation. Russian approach to state regulation innovation sphere has one significant difference from Western practice: in our country, the main object of regulation and support from the authorities is a research institute and (or) scientific organization, while abroad the priority is the innovation infrastructure, i.e. the immediate environment in which innovations are created. Many Russian and foreign experts have repeatedly paid attention to this aspect. In particular, L. Graham, speaking at the economic forum in St. Petersburg, noted that despite the fact that the market economy in Russian Federation has been functioning for almost 30 years, the authorities have not realized the difference between inventions and innovations. There are no problems with the former in Russia, but most of the results of intellectual activity remain unrealized, i.e., the transformation of inventions into innovations does not occur. The validity of this thesis is confirmed by the statistical data from Table. 10.6, indicating a low percentage of implemented RIA. Obviously, without implementation, commercialization aimed at generating income is also impossible.

The Russians own two Nobel Prizes in the field of laser technologies, while Russian companies are not leaders in this industry. Russia was a pioneer in the launch of an artificial Earth satellite, but it occupies less than 1% of the telecommunications market. Sergey Lebedev created the first electronic digital computer in Europe, but it was not Russian companies that were engaged in the embodiment of this result of intellectual activity.

The primary area of concentration of the efforts of the state should not be technologies, but the environment in which they will be implemented. At the same time, the environment must be interpreted in a broad sense - not only as an innovative infrastructure, but as a socio-economic conjuncture. Foreign experts point out that the most important factors innovative activity is the presence of a free market, ensuring the protection of intellectual property, control of corruption, democratic form of government. The validity of this assumption becomes obvious if we recall the numerous corruption scandals around Skolkovo, which largely nullified attempts to create an analogue of Silicon Valley in Russia.

Lack of demand for innovation. At the moment, the Russian authorities are concentrating their efforts on speeding up the appearance of the invention, thus ensuring the RIA offer. However, without the right level of demand, the market will not be able to achieve the desired equilibrium. This problem is multifaceted.

On the one hand, the collapse of branch science, which was given great attention in Soviet times. For example, in many enterprises there were central factory laboratories that were engaged in R&D within the scope of the target organization. These laboratories, firstly, carried out research and development related to specific practical needs, thereby performing exploratory studies of the second kind. Secondly, even under the condition of exploratory research of the first kind, the task of implementation was greatly simplified due to close ties with the target enterprise.

On the other hand, an analysis of the reasons for the lack of demand for innovation again brings us back to the need to create an adequate economic and political environment. With the current level of income in Russia (average for the country for 2016-2017. wage amounted to 36 thousand rubles, but there are cities in which it did not reach 20 thousand rubles, for example, Kemerovo, Novosibirsk, Orel) individuals cannot purchase innovative products. The problem of the crisis of consumption is recognized even in the highest echelons of power, it has been pointed out more than once by Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation O. Golodets. The Ministry of Economic Development of Russia postulated that retail ended 2015 with the worst results in more than 40 years, which could lead to buyers becoming "trade watchers" in the near future.

If in developed countries the share of spending on food is about 15%, in Russia this figure is twice as high. According to monitoring economic situation in Russia, prepared Russian Academy National economy and public service under the President of the Russian Federation, the Gaidar Institute and the All-Russian Academy foreign trade, another quarter of consumer spending of the population (26.3%) is payment for services, 11% - bills for housing and communal services. Obviously, in the current economic situation, there is simply no money left for the purchase of innovative products from the consumer. Moreover, he is not inclined to overcome barriers of perception and risk buying an unknown product.

The demand for innovation on the part of business has always been of a secondary nature, that is, it was determined by the demand for the final product on the market. In the absence of the latter, the reluctance of most companies to invest in the purchase of innovative equipment or in the development and (or) acquisition of new technologies is obvious. The situation is aggravated by the depreciation of the ruble, rising prices and the instability of the economic situation in general. Unfortunately, the promotion of the benefits of sanctions in connection with possible import substitution at the moment has no significant evidence.

In 2017, we conducted a survey of managers of 30 SIEs in St. Petersburg. According to the results of the survey, the conditions for the development of small businesses in Russia were considered unfavorable by 44% of the respondents. The vision of the key problems in the development of SIE, from the point of view of the respondents, is presented in fig. 10.3.

Rice. 10.3.

As can be seen from the diagram, 24% of respondents noted low demand for innovations in Russia, as well as difficulties in selling goods in terms of attracting resellers, organization of the sales and promotion process (32%).

Deterioration of the personnel component. The years of perestroika had a negative impact on the number and structure human capital in the field of research and development. In 1992, 2.3 million people were employed in science and scientific services, or 3.2% of all those employed in the economy. Over 10 years of reforms, this figure has almost halved - by 2002, the number of people employed in science and scientific services amounted to approximately 1.2 million people, and specific gravity in this area fell to 1%.

In the future, the noted negative trend worsened. By 2010, the number of researchers fell almost three times compared to 2002. Table. 10.7 shows the dynamics of changes in the state of human capital in the scientific field in terms of the total number of scientists and their structure.

Table 10.7

Change in the number and structure of researchers in 2016 compared to 2010

Index	2010 G.			2016 G.
Index	Issle dova bodies	The doctors Sciences	Kandy dates Sciences	Issle dova bodies	The doctors Sciences	Kandy dates Sciences

Including aged: up to 29 (inclusive)




70 and older

First, it should be noted that both in 2010 and 2016, the composition of researchers in terms of qualifications (if assessed through a scientific degree) was not at its best. high level. Thus, the share of doctors of sciences was approximately 7%, the share of candidates - in 2016 increased from 21 to 22%.

Researchers over 70 years of age make up about 9%, those aged 60-69 years - about 16%. A positive trend is that the proportion of researchers aged 30-39 has increased from 16% to 24%. If we turn to the analysis of the age of scientists with scientific degrees, the situation becomes less rosy. The proportion of doctors over the age of 70 increased from 32 to 34%, those aged 60-69 from 29 to 33%; at the age of 40-49 from 8.7 to 9.2%. The process of aging of personnel is clearly traced. The situation is more positive with regard to candidates of sciences: if in 2010 among them persons aged 50 to 59 years old prevailed, in 2016 people aged 30 to 39 years old became the dominant group. At the same time, the share of candidates of sciences under 29 years of age decreased from 5.5% to 4.7%. This can be explained by the decline in the interest of young people in postgraduate studies due to the reforms being carried out in higher education.

It is worth paying attention to a certain discrepancy between the strategic goals of the reformers and the needs of the modern economy. The government is increasing attention to technical specialties. However, due to the increasing requirements for the qualifications of an employee, narrow specialists, for the preparation of which domestic education has begun to reorient, are no longer satisfied with many areas of the economy, especially knowledge-intensive industries where specialists of a wide profile are in demand.

As before, the problems of lowering the quality of education, the drain of personnel and the unwillingness of young people to work in the field of education and science, and it is there that fundamental knowledge is formed, remain unresolved. Special attention should be paid to the increasingly active use incentive measures that are not suitable for scientific staff. AT modern conditions less and less attention is being paid to creating a climate favorable for creativity, relying on quantitative indicators, and no proper measures are being taken to assign personnel to the organization. A striking example is the reliance on the number of publications (Hirsch index) without a detailed analysis of their quality when conducting a competition for university faculty members.

The national innovation system is characterized by a low level of coordination. On the one hand, the innovation infrastructure of the Russian Federation contains all the elements that are common in developed countries. There are special economic zones that provide indirect support, mainly in the form of tax incentives, there are technology parks and innovation centers, but the national innovation system still does not live up to its name, because its main problem is lack of system.

For example, technology-innovative SEZs actively provide indirect support to innovative companies in the form of tax incentives. However, only operating enterprises can become residents. That is, there is a strategic gap between fundamental research, which should be carried out somewhere outside the economic zone, and the mass production stage, which this element of the innovation infrastructure is aimed at supporting.

Russian technoparks for the most part belong to the category of science parks, the basis of which is the university, on the interests of which all the work of this infrastructural entity is mainly oriented. Despite the presence of SIE in the structure of technoparks, there is no forced introduction of the results of intellectual activity.

Based federal law dated August 2, 2009 No. 217-FZ “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation on the Creation of Budget Scientific and educational institutions business companies for the purpose of practical application (implementation) of the results of intellectual activity” it is possible to create SIE at universities, but the realities are far from ideal. There are still a lot of bureaucratic barriers, transaction costs constantly arise in the field of division of intellectual property rights between the university and developers.

One can learn from the constructive experience of regulating the innovation sphere in the USSR, remembering the BRIZTI mechanism - the Bureau of Rationalization, Invention and Technical Information. These structures existed at large manufacturing enterprises, essentially representing an analogue of modern internal ventures. Ordinary employees of the enterprise could apply to them with rationalization proposals; within the bureau there was a special department for checking patent purity.

Another positive example can be scientific and production associations, which included manufacturing enterprises and research institute; the latter was engaged in increasing the NTU of the enterprise through the development of new technologies. The largest research and production associations were Plastpolymer, Positron, Rhythm, Burevestnik, Pigment, Bummash. These structures have made it possible to significantly reduce the time for the development and introduction of new products into production, as well as to improve the technical level and quality of products.

To solve the above problems it is necessary:

1) improve the general economic situation in terms of:
- improving the standard of living (which will increase the demand for innovative products);
- financial policy, including through ensuring the availability of loans (in particular, through the use of preferential terms for firms engaged in research and development), reducing inflation, applying tax incentives for innovative active companies(these measures are primarily designed to ensure the growth of the supply of innovative products);
2) change the vector personnel policy in the scientific and technical field, namely:
- raise the status of persons engaged in scientific and research activities, in particular, by establishing an adequate amount of remuneration;
- change the criteria governing the selection of personnel in scientific and research organizations: it is necessary to give priority to not quantitative, but quality indicators;
- promote staff loyalty to scientific, technical and educational organizations in which they work;
3) increase attention to the quality of education. To date, alarming trends are the abolition of state exams in a number of universities for students of various levels of education, the replacement of entrance exams for master's programs with portfolios and essays, the formal nature of graduation checks. qualifying works on the percentage of illegal borrowings, postgraduate reforms, as a result of which training in practice ends not with the defense of a candidate's dissertation, but with the issuance of a certificate of completion of postgraduate studies;
4) to develop the innovation infrastructure not so much from the point of view of the formation of its new facilities, but from the point of view of increasing the efficiency of the use of existing resources, in particular:
- to more actively inform the subjects of innovation activity about the opportunities provided by various infrastructural formations;
- reduce the bureaucratic barriers associated with the entry innovative company in various objects of innovation infrastructure;
- develop consulting support for the participation of innovative entrepreneurs in the innovation infrastructure, in particular, through Internet technologies;
- increase the level of coordination of various infrastructure formations;
5) to speed up the commercialization of the results of intellectual activity. As noted above, the percentage of implemented inventions and other intellectual property in Russia is extremely small. To increase it, it is advisable:
- conduct monitoring aimed at identifying promising but unused RIAs;
- activate the compulsory license mechanism provided for by the Civil Code of the Russian Federation;
- to rank tax and other benefits, increasing them for companies that have not only carried out R&D on the development of RIA, but also implemented other stages of the innovation cycle, launched mass production.