Help on Tele2, tariffs, questions

At the present stage of development, the competitiveness of the region is one of the key factors of its economic growth and sustainability. To strengthen its positions in the national and global arena, the concept of development is becoming more and more widespread in developed countries and gradually in Russia. network structures. These associations become an alternative to such traditional hierarchical types of associations as holdings, groups, corporations, etc.

There is no generally accepted definition of the network structure; its conceptual and terminological apparatus is in its infancy. The boundaries of understanding this term are determined individually, depending on the goals and objectives of the study.

There are the following approaches to determining the essence of the network structure:

As a way to harmonize the activities of vertically and horizontally integrated participants with independent legal status, but state dependent overall structure economic situation;

As a means of forming complex cooperative ties between companies that provide a high degree coordination of the processes of their functioning;

As an institution that implements the concept of optimal interaction of equal in their roles and functions, but potentially financially independent partners.

Attempts to understand the phenomenon networking led to the appearance in the scientific literature of other terms, the content and definition of which in a number of research work coincide with the concept of a network structure: network formations, network organizations, network firm, network, intercompany network, business network.

Exploring the network interaction of economic entities, they also talk about integrated (network) structures. This concept is broader and includes such forms of associations as: corporations, holdings, concerns, enterprises with separate divisions and etc.

An example of network structures that exist at the present stage in Russia are: clusters, territorial production complexes, business groups, strategic alliances and joint production. Under the influence of scientific and technological progress, the processes of globalization and competition, other forms of interaction are being formed that do not yet have stable terms, methods and approaches for their designation and research. Yes, development information technologies destroys the traditional idea of ​​the need for spatial proximity of interacting subjects; there are networks of enterprises that build cooperation using organizational charts of virtual interaction.

A common feature of all forms of networking is:

The presence of partnerships on a long-term basis of several economic entities.

As specific features of the network structure in recent years, the scientific literature distinguishes:

Economic independence (independence in legal terms);

The presence of common goals, for example, such as: expansion in the economic space, obtaining a synergistic effect, increasing competitiveness and innovation, building social capital, creating value for consumers, etc.

A significant difference between network structures and previous types of organization is that they do not involve the concentration within one enterprise of all the assets necessary to create a product, but the use of the collective assets of several enterprises. Members of network structures recognize interdependence and strive to exchange information and cooperate.

A prerequisite for creating a network structure is the possibility of exchanging one resource or another. Moreover, for one enterprise this resource is redundant, and for another enterprise it is insufficient. A distinctive feature of network structures is to ensure the emergence in them of a number of positive synergistic effects and relational assets that are unattainable if its participants exist separately.

The synergistic effect is formed as a cumulative multiplied effect of joint activities in the association itself and in the economy of the regions of their functioning as a result of a combination of: scale effect, economies of scale, specialization effect, coverage effect. Which in turn improves efficiency. production process, allows you to reduce costs and increase the income of enterprises and, accordingly, the gross regional product of the region itself.

In the process of interaction between network participants, social capital is formed, which is expressed in the form of relational rent, i.e. excess profits jointly derived from exchange relationships that cannot be obtained by any of the firms in isolation from each other and which can only be created through the joint idiosyncratic efforts of partners specialized in their alliances.

Relational rent is the basis for the emergence of network associations of enterprises based on knowledge. In these associations, there is an exchange (transfer) of knowledge and information between the participants and the joint creation of new knowledge. On the one hand, this leads to an increase in productivity at the level of an individual enterprise, on the other hand, it contributes to the development of the innovative ability of the entire network and the region as a whole. An example of associations of organizations that have achieved success through knowledge transfer and increased innovative capacity is the combination of Texas Instrument and IBM in France, which have established their own R&D centers.

The knowledge and skills available in one organization can be used in another, which expands the specialization of the enterprise and improves the ability to respond flexibly to customer requests. Thus, new competitive advantages, and the response of enterprises to changing economic conditions is improving.

Network interaction transforms the very nature of the process of development of the regional economic system - priority is given not to the industry as an object of management, but to the region, which leads to an increase in regional competitiveness due to:

- ensuring the growth of the efficiency of interaction between regional enterprises and increasing the level of their income;

– assistance in organizing high-tech industries, as well as innovative development of the region as a whole;

- stimulating the transfer of knowledge and the formation of new competitive advantages, differentiation of the regional economic system;

- reducing pressure on the resource base of the regions by increasing the efficiency of production;

– activation of institutional and economic transformations;

– promoting the accumulation and reproduction of elements human capital as a key asset of post-industrial transformations;

- establishing effective information interaction and cooperation between its participants, involving related industries.

In this regard, it is advisable to raise the question of the need for a more active development of network structures, as a factor in the development of the potential of the economic space, ensuring its integrity, having a significant impact on the development of regions, improving the state of their economy and the proportions of resource provision. The network structure, playing the role of a tool that stimulates the development of the region, can become one of the main growth points for an innovation-oriented economy, creates a favorable environment for the development of large, medium and small businesses and has a multiplier effect that has a positive impact on the development of the region's industry and contributes to an increase in the level of the life of the population.

Bibliography

1. Gurova E.A. Semantic essence of the category "network organization" / E.A. Gurova // Scientific potential of the XXI century: collection scientific papers Based on the materials of the VII International Youth scientific conference.- Stavropol: Fabula, 2013. - S. 22-24

2. Dyer J. H. Relational approach: corporate strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantages / J. H. Dyer, H. Singh // Russian magazine Management.- 2009.- №3.- S. 65-94.

3. Katkalo V.S. Interfirm networks: problems of research of a new organizational strategy in the 1980-1990s // Bulletin of St. Petersburg University Ser.5. Economy. 1999. Issue. 2 S.21-38.

4. Titov L. Yu. Economic innovative structures and network type institutions: theory and practice // dissertations for the degree of Doctor of Economic Sciences, 2010.

5. Khilko N.A. Participation of vertically integrated corporations and network organizations in the development of regional economic systems modern Russia(on the materials of the Southern Federal District) // dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Economics, 2013.

Conclusion

The global economy has undergone significant changes in recent decades. The current stage of development is characterized new role technologies as a catalyst for qualitative change, the emergence additional centers forces and economic axes, new forms of market functioning. These changes require a revision of state approaches to ensuring national competitiveness, the creation of a system of institutions that allow one to effectively position themselves on the world stage, identify key resources and competencies, and consistently realize the national competitive potential. At the same time, one should proceed from the fact that the global restructuring of the world economy does not lead to unification, but to a fundamental “redrawing” of the economic map of the world, which may result in a significant change in the balance of forces and positions of individual states and their groups.

Ensuring the long-term competitiveness of the national economy of any country in this situation should be based on the active position of the state, acting on the basis of the changed system of criteria by which the strategy for creating an institutional environment is built. In particular, the definition of norms and rules for the functioning of Russian business should take into account that companies in most industries are forced to operate in new conditions, when competition becomes global, technological changes are rapid, and intangible assets are much more significant for maintaining competitiveness. The answer to these challenges and one of the most important features of the current stage of development is the transformation organizational structures business, the emergence of a whole range of network forms. They are becoming an essential component of the global restructuring of the world economic space.

The current stage of socio-economic development is associated with fundamental changes in the relationship between subjects, generated by a change in the characteristics of the environment in which they interact. Increased complementarity and interdependence are causing more "win-win" or "win-win" situations, as opposed to the "win-lose" situation that prevailed before. This change should be recognized as fundamentally important, since it is from here that the development of cooperative relations predicted by many, integration at all levels, etc., can follow the trend. choose the "win-win" alternative as optimal.

The intensification of ties that go beyond the boundaries of the organization ultimately leads not to blurring the boundaries of the enterprise, but to their reconstruction at a new stage of development. The process of reconstruction becomes more intensive and faster, it turns out to be permanent, dependent on the ratio of benefits and costs of various alternatives - what was previously "inside" is externalized, and vice versa, increasing the flexibility of the organization may require recentralization (i.e., not necessarily connected with decentralization).

Modern information and communication technologies play a significant role in this, making it possible to quickly restructure communications and processes. The development of ICT contributes to the creation of fundamentally new opportunities for interaction, as well as their rapid spread and the transformation of the network principle of intercompany interaction into an immanent characteristic of modern economic reality. At the same time, it should be emphasized that the creation of a common ICT platform and the joint use of MOIS (an information system consisting of information systems business partners, each of which has its own own structure, subsystems, strategies, technologies and goals) can lead to an increase in the dependence of weaker partners on the focal firm. At the same time, the dependence of weak participants within a quasi-integrated structure may be more rigid than the dependence of subdivisions in a hierarchical organization with consolidated ownership.

The inclusion of the quasi-integration phenomenon in the analysis made it possible to draw a number of important conclusions regarding the place of network interorganizational interactions in the modern economy and state economic policy measures aimed at using the opportunities associated with these forms to ensure national competitiveness. Having a deceptive appearance of disintegration, the establishment of long-term interactions ensures the strengthening of the market power of companies included in quasi-integrated structures, allows them to enjoy the benefits inherent in the characteristics of integration as a phenomenon, without falling under the control and regulation of the state.

We have shown that the vast majority of forms of quasi-integration relate to forms of inter-firm network interaction, however, there are non-network forms of quasi-integration and intermediate forms that cannot be clearly attributed to network or non-network inter-firm interaction.

Interorganizational networks have their own strengths and weak sides. It cannot be argued that there is a single, general trend towards certain types of control, management or coordination within and between enterprises. Comparison of the results of empirical studies relating to different industries indicates the practical diversity of organizational forms and their combinations. IN modern conditions is the norm when the same economic agent, seeking to maintain and increase competitive advantages and open up new market opportunities, considers integration in the traditional sense, quasi-integration and disintegration as equivalent alternatives. We can say that in modern conditions there is an expansion of strategic options and flexible combinations of various forms of intra- and inter-firm relations. This pattern can be traced in many industries and for different companies. Accordingly, there are no “definitely best” solutions - each of the options has its own advantages depending on the specific situation.

In Russia, a serious study of inter-firm networking has just begun. folding into Russian economy the situation has not been sufficiently studied from this point of view. It can, however, be argued that the formation of integrated structures in the domestic economy was distinguished by a noticeable originality, which arose as a result of the fact that the mechanisms for managing economic interactions were formed in conditions of strong instability of the institutional environment, the incompleteness of the system of formal norms and rules, and the lack of effective mechanisms for enforcement formal rules. It was beneficial for business entities to strive to establish such relationships that would be as informal as possible and, thus, resistant to various kinds of external influences (both from potential competitors and the state).

The situation that has developed in modern Russia is characterized by a combination of centrifugal and centripetal tendencies. On the process of restructuring Russian firms at the end of the 20th century. influenced by the institutional structure inherited from the planned economy and characterized by a high level of monopolization and specificity. The process of disintegration of the existing economic ties, aggravated by the lack of a coherent state concept in the field of economic policy and the strengthening of the separatism of regional authorities, led to the degradation of the resource potential of the economy and an increase in the imbalance in the development of industry markets. This process, however, has gradually been replaced by integration processes in most industry markets. There is a clear trend towards an increase in the number of integrated groups, both formal and informal.

The development of Russian informal groups has its own characteristics, which make us talk about fundamental difference between them and network intercompany associations abroad. The institutional environment of modern Russia, in terms of its formal norms and rules, as well as mechanisms that ensure enforcement of their implementation, has not yet solved its main task - creating conditions for saving on the costs of doing business. economic activity, including by ensuring an acceptable level of its uncertainty. The system of property rights is unstable, the powers possessed by the owner can be challenged and withdrawn by economic agents or the state without using any compensatory instruments. Formal ways of functioning of the institution of property rights, property control, are unable to ensure maximum efficiency in the use of cash resources by business entities. As a result, other institutional arrangements have emerged, aimed at minimizing the risk of the owner losing his powers. An important mechanism for their functioning has become a certain dispersal, blurring of the powers of ownership. In other words, there is a movement towards network interaction in Russia, but it was dictated primarily not by the complementarity of the use of resources and competencies, but by the need for a “smoke screen” in the conditions of the predatory behavior of competitors and the state, or the desire to hide one’s own predatory behavior.

In addition, the education that business practitioners receive in our country does not provide full knowledge about networking in general and about various types networks. The lack of information, together with the peculiarities of the Russian institutional environment, make networks a marginal form of organizing production, which may affect the competitiveness of Russian companies in the near future.

Vertically integrated hierarchical structures in Russia still have an advantage over network forms. However, there is significant potential to increase international competitiveness as well. large companies, and the overall competitiveness of small and medium-sized Russian businesses, using a combination of complementary resources and competencies and the possibility of saving on transaction costs. Without belittling the role of large integrated industry and inter-industry corporations and financial and industrial groups, one should pay attention to the possibilities of networks and consider them as equal alternatives to business organization. This potential in Russian conditions until now it is practically not used.

It is necessary to create institutional prerequisites for the development of network interaction between Russian companies, improve the institutional environment, which could contribute to the growth of the competitiveness of companies, industries, regions and the Russian economy as a whole. In this case, special attention should be paid to cluster policy, since the development of clusters can help ensure territorial integrity, as well as the formation of cross-border and internal economic axes as the basis for Russia's participation in the transforming global economic space. However, an attempt to "implant" clusters "from above" without a clear analysis and setting the right priorities, instead of increasing competitiveness, can create conditions for extracting quasi-rents by special interest groups aimed at achieving personal benefits.

At present, in the system of events of the Russian public policy the focus is on the consolidation of industry markets and integrated structures of the traditional type. There is no doubt that among decision makers in the highest level, an opinion was formed that the restoration of the production potential of Russia and overcoming the structural fragmentation of industrial sectors and complexes requires a radical transformation existing businesses and creation of powerful consolidated structures. At the same time, the fact that modern features development of the world economy require the development of new approaches to the integration of economic entities. In particular, the creation of a large corporation should be considered each time as one of the alternatives, which has both advantages and significant disadvantages. Large integrated structures of the traditional type are often a suboptimal alternative in conditions of high market turbulence and growing demands for individualization of products and services from consumers. For a number of industry markets, the basis for the growth of competitiveness and the best alternative may be intercompany networking, which is sustainable.

Even in those industry markets where it makes sense to ensure international competitiveness by creating large corporations with colossal market power and dominating their industry market, it is necessary to simultaneously create conditions for stable integration interactions between formally independent enterprises.

MODERN THEORIES OF ORGANIZATION AND STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT: MAIN APPROACHES AND EVOLUTION OF THE NETWORK CONCEPT

This lecture traces the evolution of the network concept, characterizes the most well-known theoretical views on the nature of intercompany networks. In the first part of the lecture, approaches are considered from the point of view of the nature of organizations, their individual and group dynamics. Dana a brief description of several dominant approaches to organization theory, including the theory of social networks (analysis of various forms of interaction between subjects in terms of the topology of connections, their stability and influence on the behavior of these subjects), organizational ecology (an approach to studying the dynamics of various human communities in the social sciences) and new institutional economic theory (analysis of the role of institutions and their interactions on society and its structures). The following are the theories. strategic management and "managerial" approach to the analysis of the phenomenon of network interaction. Attention is focused on the interdisciplinary nature of the study of network forms of interaction between companies, features and "points of intersection" of different approaches are shown.

Introduction

The term "network" is widely used in modern social sciences and attracts the attention of numerous researchers who are trying to explain the reasons for the intensive growth of network structures from different points of view. Networks are of interest in various fields of knowledge about society - in economics and sociology, in management theory and social psychology. On the one hand, this is good, since it is at the intersection of scientific disciplines that it is often possible to achieve interesting results, put forward new hypotheses and theories. On the other hand, this greatly confuses the situation, since the differences in descriptions and explanations of the same phenomenon are sometimes so great that they develop into a kind of “information chaos”, when everyone speaks the same words about different phenomena and different words about the same thing.

In principle, any human activity can be called a network, with the exception of a solitary life on a desert island, but this does not give us anything either from the point of view of theory or from the point of view of practice. We will have to define our position on what we mean by a network. Looking ahead, let's say for now briefly that within the framework of this course of lectures, network coordination of the activities of economic agents will be considered. That is, we are interested in the network as one of mechanisms for coordinating the actions of economic agents, having its own characteristics that distinguish it from other coordination mechanisms.

But any interaction of economic agents in reality consists of interactions of individuals and groups of people pursuing their own interests and having their own circle of contacts with other people and groups. Accordingly, when analyzing network interaction, it is impossible to ignore issues related to the formation of social networks, especially since the tools of social network theory are quite often used to study network interorganizational interaction. In addition, in this lecture we will briefly review other well-known approaches that are of interest for understanding network coordination: organizational ecology, new institutional economics, and strategic management theories.

Main part

Organizational Sciences: Basic Approaches

Organization theory is one of the most dynamically developing areas of the social sciences in recent decades. At the same time, as is usually the case with a new field of knowledge, there is no single, holistic theory of organization. It's about rather, about the totality of different concepts, schools, approaches. That is, the organizational sciences are a complex of interrelated branches of knowledge about the nature of organizations, their individual and group dynamics. Organizational sciences analyze and model the factors that influence intraorganizational and interorganizational processes that are the result of human interaction.

The organizational sciences are primarily theories of organizational behavior (organizational behavior) and partly industry organization theory (industrial organization), the subject of which is "the functioning of markets and industries, in particular - the ways firms compete with each other." All these theories are based on the concept of organization as a complete system. But integrity and the means to achieve it are understood differently in different approaches, and different methods are used to explain the behavior of organizations.

We will be primarily interested in theories of organizational behavior (the behavior of an organization is understood as the observed result of the actions and interactions of its members among themselves, as well as organizations with individuals who are not members of it). Among them, we will highlight several dominant approaches, each of which is important in its own way for studying the network interaction of companies:

organizational ecology;

new institutional economics .

Let us briefly consider the features of these theories and try to understand what each of them can give for the study of the phenomenon of interest to us.

Social network theory (social networks) analyzes various forms interactions between subjects (individuals and organizations) in terms of the topology of connections, their stability and influence on the behavior of these subjects. This theory began to take shape over 50 years ago. The pioneers were representatives of sociology and sociopsychology, who from the very beginning were focused on studying the role of human interactions in the development of any structures. By posing the question of the study of social networks, they made a kind of breakthrough: before that, like the famous comedy hero who did not suspect that he was speaking in prose, people did not think about the fact that they are included in specific networks of relationships, and even more so that these networks are not the same.

The key conceptual components of the theory of network analysis were laid down by Jacob Moreno. In 1934, his work “Who Will Survive? Fundamentals of sociometry, group psychothepy and sociodrama. Proposing to use networks in the field of group psychotherapy, Moreno coined the concept of "sociogram" and developed the concept sociometry. When constructing sociograms, group members were ordered in visible space, certain positions were assigned to them, and the choices (both positive and negative) were shown by arrows. This idea formed the basis for the widespread use of graph theory in the study of social networks.

Later, Alex Bavlas and Harold Levitt took another important step in the development of the theory: they suggested that a network be understood as a set positions, not individuals. The final model of relations between positions, obtained by them in the course of experiments, looked like a basis or type of structure. In the works of A. Beivlas for the first time there is a mention of central(when communications were carried out through the central position, certain tasks were performed better and faster), as well as the idea that the links between positions are resource flows.

A significant contribution to the development of the theory of social networks in the 50s of the XX century. introduced by anthropologists (A.R. Radcliffe-Brown, Z. Nydel, J. K. Mitchell). In "Theory social structure 3. Nydel wrote: "We determine the structure of society through a specific population and behavioral patterns or networks (or systems) of relationships obtained by actors through the performance of their joint and mutual roles." The subgroups existing in this structure are characterized by certain types of interactions that are supported by all members of the subgroup - this social network.

At present, the definition given by J. Mitchell is widespread, which, under social network understands a specific set of links between agents within a particular group. The characteristics of these connections can serve to interpret the social behavior of the participants involved. That is, when studying any social network, it is important to identify its structure and connections between participants, based on jointly developed norms and rules. But it is equally important to identify what processes occur within this structure. In social network theory, these interactions and the behavior of participants in the network are determined by structure and connections.

N. Noria and R. Eccles proposed a modification of the definition of J. Mitchell: “The most general use the term “network” is a designation of the structure of connections between the elements of a social system. These elements can be roles, individuals, organizations, industries, or even nations (states). Their connections may be based on negotiation, location, friendship, kinship, power, economic exchange, exchange of information, or anything else that forms the basis of the connection.” In this definition, we pay special attention to the word "system" (it is also in the definition of 3. Found). As you know, a system (Greek systëma - a whole made up of parts) is understood as a set of elements between which there are connections and interactions and which are somehow separated from environment(environment). The boundaries of the system are determined by the presence of a high intensity of interaction between elements within the system, significantly exceeding the intensity of contacts between them and the elements. external environment. That is, we are dealing with a social network if and only if the frequency and intensity of interactions between a certain group of individuals regarding a certain type of activity significantly exceeds the frequency and intensity of similar interactions between them and outsiders (the external environment).

In the context of the transition of the world economy to post-industrial development, the process of establishing a network structure is growing, when rigid hierarchical structures are everywhere replaced by flexible network ones, and economic systems gradually acquire a cluster structure instead of a traditional sectoral structure. Dynamic networking is seen as a necessary institutional environment for an innovative type of growth based on continuous updates.

The main feature of modern information society, based on digital technologies, M. Castells noted, is not so much the dominance of information as such, but the network logic of its use. By this circumstance, he emphasized the organic connection between the new technological paradigm and the formation of a network structure, when the organization of the economy and society is based on network information flows, network structures and network interactions.

In accordance with his foresight, the modern economy spontaneously transforms into a network system and thereby becomes a "continuously flowing space of flows", acquiring the ability of continuous updates. Thus, in the most developed countries such technological structures dominate, which are based on the widespread use of network information technologies, promising means computer science and telecommunications. At present, the information paradigm determines the network nature of all institutions of the "new economy". In institutional terms, the complication of the structure of systems is associated with the emergence of a new way of coordinating ties and harmonizing interests.

Signs of the formation of the network way of life began to appear already in the 1990s, in particular, in the form of an increase in turbulence. One of the first papers on the subject, published by C. Kelly, entitled New Rules for the New Economy: Twelve Interconnected Principles for Surviving a Turbulent World, argued that every business will eventually submit to the logic and economics of networks.

Historically and logically, the formation of the network structure of international business is based on a complex dialectical unity of two processes. On the one hand, with the development of productive forces, the establishment, strengthening and complication of ties between various types labor, areas of activity, etc. On the other hand, there is a division of labor, specialization deepens, new spheres of economic activity, industries, sub-sectors, etc. appear and separate. These two processes are organically interrelated and complement each other. Each of them, in turn, is a complex process that takes place at various levels of the economic system: micro-, macro-, meso- and mega-levels.

According to foreign researchers, economic contacts between subjects entrepreneurial activity carried out interactively by direct link through websites. Emerging information (network platforms) Internet companies are replacing traditional resellers and speed up the exchange of information in the course of a commercial transaction. A new (direct) level of cooperation between the producer and the consumer makes it possible to achieve the realization of the economic interests of both parties through the creation of an online economic environment and the development of diverse global communication nodes. economic network. Moreover, the post-industrial system economic relations unlike the industrial economy, it allows accelerating and achieving continuity in the renewal of the species composition of the benefits created and diversity effects ( economy of scope), which was previously held back by mass production of the same type of products and economies of scale ( economy of scale). Under these conditions, hierarchical control structures are being replaced by self-managing network systems built on horizontal connections and continuous coordination. In modern economic literature and practice, such interactive network interactions are called collaborations.

Nowadays, the processes of displacement of hierarchies by network structures are already becoming massive and irreversible, revealing themselves at all levels of economic relations. During the global crisis, a powerful impetus is being formed and given a powerful impetus to development. new model companies, a new model of markets, a new model of managing the national economy and new system world order*. Yes, since the 2000s. spread around the world more and more multi-local network companies, built not on centralized control, like a classic multinational corporation, but on the collaboration of many independent organizations and civilians, including consumers, suppliers, partners and direct competitors. This decentralized business organization model dramatically reduces production and transaction costs, as the risks, rewards, competencies and resources associated with the implementation of new projects are distributed across a global network of counterparties.

The process of clustering has acquired a ubiquitous character in modern conditions, which allows structuring the interconnections of all subsystems in the global market space, occupying an intermediate position between the market and the hierarchy. As a hybrid design, clusters have open borders to attract new members, fluid internal structure and the ability to quickly reconfigure, and they are well integrated - around a joint design idea and coordinating network platforms.

According to American analysts, the global trend of increasing the number, economic power and political influence of cross-border networks of all kinds was clearly identified in 2016, and by 2025 the world will change beyond recognition. The shift in the influence of sovereigns goes in three directions: outward - to extra-sovereign players (informal networks of government officials, international business communities, NGO alliances), downward - to local levels (towards intrastate regions) and upward - to the level international organizations and transboundary macro-regions.

Today it is becoming an objective reality that the post-industrial globalized world is not just a multipolar, but multidimensional network space, where relations of hegemony and habitual subordination are absent. In this ultra-dynamic environment, new structure-forming links are born: transnational network alliances instead of sovereign states and transindustry cluster networks instead of industries. Further clustering of the world economy will lead to the formation of even more powerful network systems operating across the borders of countries and territories, which will eventually deformalize the political world order: instead of regions as administrative entities, regional network communities will emerge, united by a common project idea.

Scientific ideas about modern clusters have developed under the influence of several areas of economic thought and vary greatly. The most accurate interpretation can be obtained from works related to the school of M. Porter. Moreover, one should rely not so much on the concept production clusters(industrial clusters), introduced by Porter in 1990 as an element of the “diamond model”, how much for his later research, starting in 1998. Based on the innovative effects observed in Silicon Valley, Porter proposes to consider clusters in three dimensions.

First, how spatially localized structures, having a territorial coverage that can vary from one region or city to a country or even several neighboring countries.

Second, how non-hierarchical network of individuals, firms and related organizations from various institutional sectors(research centers, government agencies, other institutions). All of these players are grouped in a particular area of ​​business activity and are connected to each other through various economic and knowledge transfer channels. Porter emphasizes that successful clusters are not hierarchical structures, but are "matrices of moving and overlapping (overlapping) relationships" between participants.

Third, Porter analyzes clusters as area of ​​special business environment, where the players act on the principles of commonality and complementarities so that their partnership closeness "increases the frequency and significance of their interactions along the lines of both cooperation and competition" .

Initially, Porter's theory did not reveal either the mechanism of their formation or their organizational structure. Therefore, in the 1990s. the concept of "cluster" was considered mainly as a narrow analytical construction (one of the four facets of the "diamond"), and the emergence of cluster networks - as a result of the natural evolution of the market space, not associated, according to Porter's views, with any purposeful efforts of the authorities.

However, in the 2000s leaders of various countries and territories isolated the cluster idea from the “diamond model” and transformed it into a multifunctional instrument of practical policy, considering clusters as object of purposeful creation- both on the part of market participants (promoting cluster initiatives), and on the part of the state (cluster policy and formation of cluster programs). They began to put forward strategic projects to create world-class clusters (especially in the newest sectors), trying to reproduce the design of successful Silicon Valley-type growth poles.

The most applicable in world practice are two large types of cluster - special industrial agglomerations and special network ecosystems. The processes of globalization of the world economy in the last quarter of the XX century. created the conditions for the formation of global companies and for the replacement of local self-sufficient production networks with global value chains (global value chains) that horizontally permeate sectors and countries, providing a growing diversification of world production.

As a result, the creation of local production network nodes in various territories, which are clusters with a significant advantage - a deepening of the international division of labor. The organizational design of clusters is, as a rule, groups of companies in several industries, which, thanks to network openness, rely on a dynamic combination of local and global resource flows, which ensures glocalization of resource turnover. Circulating flows of financial and physical capital have global mobility, flows of social capital are tied to the landscape of the territory (the formation of network links largely depends on the specifics of the local business climate), and flows of human capital have mixed mobility. Cluster networks in an innovative economy have the form shown in fig. 5.2.

Rice. 5.2.

The specificity of resource turnover makes clusters a unique mechanism that localizes globalized production at the level of individual territories and thereby gives it the necessary orderliness, forming a modern model of stratification of economic systems.

Compared to the industry model, it provides for a finer diversification of production, giving rise to the spread of highly specialized regions(spatial diversification), where are placed highly specialized sectors(structural diversification based on groups of related industries).

The formation of clusters that respond flexibly to changing market needs allows regional economies to consistently deepen specialization, focusing on new and increasingly sophisticated activities (a process called sophistication). Such economies quickly master unique, one-of-a-kind production competencies and acquire unique comparative advantages (in terms of quality, cost, or special properties of the product being created), which fundamentally increases their investment attractiveness. As a result, the territories where clusters appear successfully attract global investors, which helps them to take root in global networks and fit into the situation of global competition.

At the same time, clusters play a critical role in improving the competitive position of investors themselves coming to the region. International companies, which today outsource the vast majority of their operations, receive sustainable competitive benefits from the fact that they can flexibly combine the geography of factors of production. By placing resources and business functions in specialized clusters all over the world, these players try to choose for each functional task exactly the cluster where it is most effectively solved. Moreover, the international competitiveness of companies now depends not so much on their individual comparative advantage or from the advantages of their country of origin, how much in which specific regional cluster of the world do these companies place their facilities. Moreover, in order to enter the cluster and use the benefits of its dynamic network environment, leading multi- and transnational corporations are transformed into mobile multi-local companies, consisting of many functionally interconnected, but legally independent firms of various sizes.

Modern clusters are considered the most favorable structure for generating interactive innovations based on collective action precisely because they cover a wide network of independent agents of various profiles (industry, functional and institutional) that mutually support each other in the course of collaboration. The innovative nature of modern clusters is determined not by their advanced specialization, but by their unique institutional design. Based on the spiral model, it stands in stark contrast to the structure of other types of industrial agglomerations (Fig. 5.3).

An example is the Italian "industrial districts" (200 agglomerations of small and medium-sized firms), which have been producing since the 1970s. the lion's share of Italian exports. Another example is the Japanese financial-industrial groups "keiretsu", which managed in the 1970s-1980s. to bypass vertical US holdings in the global auto and electronics markets. Although such agglomerations with broad reliance on small and medium business often referred to in the literature as industrial or industrial clusters, they are very different from innovative ecosystems that use collaboration mechanisms.

Rice. 5.3. The evolution of the design of industrial agglomerations: achieving synergy 2

Full-fledged clusters, designed for an innovative type of growth, receive an impetus to development only in the post-industrial era. Their competitive advantages are associated not only and not so much with the territorial proximity of the participants, but with their functional interdependence and complementarity.

Thus, in the Scandinavian countries, only those associations where a triple helix has developed are considered innovative, and they can be formed both in the latest sectors (say, the life sciences sector) and in traditional ones (for example, the forestry industry). Silicon Valley in the United States is spontaneously developing on this principle, and the transnational biotechnology cluster ScanBalt BioRegion in Northern Europe has been successfully built on it, according to the program version, both megaclusters are organized as an extensive network of networks (networks of networks).

Silicon Valley's success was fueled by the activities of several network platforms that promoted its development, realizing the principle of the triple helix. Multilateral partnership of universities, companies, inventors, individual entrepreneurs and other organizations have made the valley a world center, first of engineering science, then of microelectronics, semiconductors, computers and, finally, ICT. Today, a powerful innovation ecosystem has been formed here, self-governing through network associations of various players. It successfully attracts innovators from all over the world (in 2010, 30% of startups were created by immigrants) and is the epicenter of numerous venture capital projects (40% of US venture investments) . By the beginning of the current decade in the leading countries of the world, clustering covered about half of the economy, and more than 100 countries and regions of the world had one or another version of the cluster policy based on the Porter concept.

Russia joined this hundred in June 2012, having formed the List of Pilot Programs for the Development of Innovative Territorial Clusters, which included 25 cluster projects with high scientific and technical potential based on the results of the competitive selection (most of them are implemented in territories that already have special benefits - in science cities, ZATOs, special economic zones). Although Russian government intends to support these regional projects with considerable budget funds, the prospects for the formation of dynamic innovation clusters in the country are rather weak. In the conditions of Russia, the problem lies not only in the fact that the selected clusters are actually created according to a decision "from above", i.e. their models and specializations have not passed the preliminary "testing by the market" that the Porter school insists on. Worse, the organizational structure of clusters is "tied" to the industrial type of growth, i.e. V best case protoclusters may appear in the country production type, despite the proclaimed innovativeness of the created structures.

Thus, the realities of post-industrial society are such that the state can no longer cope alone with the management of complex systems operating online, which raises the question of maximum socialization of the management system in the form of "pluralism of functions, not one political power" or, according to Drucker, about the transition of nations to "pluralism autonomous organizations based on knowledge".

Porter also speaks of the same functional pluralism, noting that the modern management model “makes economic development the result of a collaboration process involving various levels of government, private companies, educational and scientific institutions, public organizations» .

The pioneers of post-industrial transit, who managed to advance further than others along the path of forming a network economy and a network society, are Scandinavian countries. Their technological breakthrough and advanced competitive positions in a number of the latest production lines ensured primarily by the fact that they have become world leaders in terms of socialization of management, the development of national innovation systems and the degree of informatization of society. In the rating of network maturity, along with the absolute world leadership of Sweden, three other Scandinavian countries (Finland, Denmark and Norway) entered the top seven in 2012, even ahead of the United States.

The formation of a networked way of life is not only a challenge, but also an opportunity. The global spread of network structures allows economic systems to develop in leaps and bounds, due to internal reconfiguration, which opens up for lagging economies an objective historical chance for an innovative breakthrough- even with an unfinished industrial base and incomplete market transformation.

• Castells M. Information Age: Economics, Society and Culture. M.: State University Higher School of Economics, 2000.
• Muravyov V.A. Information in international business: autoref. dis.... cand. economics M., 2003.
• Kelly K. New Rules for the New Economy: Twelve Dependable Principles for Thrivingin a Turbulent World // Wired. 1997. No. 5.
• Smorodinskaya N.V. Changing the paradigm of world development and the formation of the network economy // Economic sociology. T. 13. No. 4. URL: www.ecsoc.hse.ru
• Katukov D.D., Malygin V.E., Smorodinskaya N.V. Institutional Environment of the Globalized Economy: Development of Network Interactions. M. : Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2012. P. 8.