Эксоцман
на главную поиск contacts

Government policy of small innovation high-tech business support and development

русская версия

Опубликовано на портале: 31-12-2010
Корпоративные финансы. 2008.  № 3 (7). С. 47-50. 
In this paper author investigates a Russian state support policy of innovative sector, first of all the small highly technological companies. Considering a wide spectrum of possible innovative activity (in technologies, marketing, management, business-processes, etc.), the author focuses attention to technological innovations and a state policy of their development. The hi-tech sphere of economy first of all requires the state support of innovative activity because large investments requirement into researches and development, creation of manufacture, long terms of feedback under projects. On the basis of the analysis the presence of separate tools of the state support realized by various government authorities is revealed. Existing forms of the state support of innovative activity with the certain degree of reserve can be divided on financial and not financial. Financial forms of support include the support connected with granting of financing (directly by the authorities or through tools of state-private partnership) and economy on payments in favour of the state (tax and customs privileges). Not financial forms of support include an infrastructure creation for innovative activity - for example, technoparks and business-incubators, initiatives in the field of transfer of the rights to intellectual property, an information field creation and other initiatives. Now there’re a lot forms and instruments of the innovative activity state support in the Russian Federation that can be characterized by: 1. The development and support of the small highly technological companies is considered in various federal and ministerial programs. Various forms of financial and not financial support of the companies are used, but to be carried out they by various government authorities which not always consider a picture as a whole that leads to misbalance of tools. It seems perspective 1) to create special small business government agency (like US Small Business Administration) 2) to use segment branch/industry specificity of support (priorities are given nanotehnology, to biotechnologies and information systems). 2. On the beginning 2008 financial forms of the state support are developed more, than not financial. In the near future it is possible to predict excess of the money resources offer over quantity perspective for financing the small innovative companies. 3. Current forms of development and support have essential lacks from the point of view of needs of the small companies, have no necessary industry specificity, which crucial important in view of a high capital intensity (except for information technologies which least require a special infrastructure in comparison with nano- and biotechnologies). 4. New forms of state support of small innovative business in highly technological innovative spheres are offered: 1) technozones on the basis of existing scientific research institutes (SRI) and state defensive enterprises, and 2) the leasing company specializing on the highly technological equipment. Planned efficiency of new state innovative support tools is essential above the majority existing. New forms of support can be realized within the already operating structures of the state support, for example The Russian Corporation of Nanotechnology.
BiBTeX
RIS
Ключевые слова

См. также:
Рустем Махмутович Нуреев, Евгений Георгиевич Бусыгин
Journal of Institutional Studies (Журнал институциональных исследований). 2017.  Т. 9. № 3. С. 97-118. 
[Статья]
Александр Олегович Карпов
Общественные науки и современность. 2016.  № 6. С. 139-152. 
[Статья]
Вольфрам Элснер
Journal of Institutional Studies (Журнал институциональных исследований). 2018.  Т. 10. № 4. С. 7-19. 
[Статья]
Александр Петрович Михайлов, Вячеслав Анатольевич Шведовский, Владислав Жанович Келле
Социология: методология, методы и математическое моделирование (Социология: 4М). 2001.  № 13. С. 114-122. 
[Статья]
Томас Гросфелд, Тео Роландт
Форсайт. 2008.  Т. 2. № 1. С. 24-29. 
[Статья]
Роман Владимирович Губарев, Евгений Иванович Дзюба, Оксана Михайловна Куликова, Фаниль Саитович Файзуллин
Journal of Institutional Studies (Журнал институциональных исследований). 2019.  Т. 11. № 2. С. 146-170. 
[Статья]
Ronald G. Corwin
Sociology of Education. 1975.  Vol. 48. No. 1. P. 1-37. 
[Статья]