CC BY
39
-►
Regional and branch economy
DOI: 10.18721/JE.11204 UDC 338.24
ANALYSIS OF THE FORMATION AND FUNCTIONING OF STRATEGIC PLANNING OF INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT IN RUSSIA
S.V. Palash
Kostroma State University, Kostroma, Russian Federation
The relevance of the topic is determined by the formation of the system of strategic planning, strategies of individual industries, the existing problems of implementation and evaluation of the effectiveness of state programs of industrial development in the Russian Federation. The goal of the study is in analyzing the formation and functioning of strategic planning of industrial development in the Russian Federation, identifying the problems and finding ways for solving them. The objectives of the study are analysis of the problems of formation of the system of strategic planning of industrial development in the Russian Federation; analysis of the current state of strategic planning of industrial development in the Russian Federation; identification of implementation problems, as well as analysis of the effectiveness and efficiency of state programs of industrial development and substantiation of the impact of these problems on achieving industrial development goals; development of elements of the methodology for assessing the effectiveness and efficiency of state programs. The methods of the study are analysis of normative and methodological documents of strategic planning, economic analysis. The article deals with the problems of strategic planning in the Russian Federation, the formation of strategies for socio-economic development and development of certain industries, the formation of institutional and methodological support of strategic planning, evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of the state programs of industrial development. We have analyzed the dynamics of the actual values of the target indicators of the state program of the Russian Federation «Development of industry and improvement of its competitiveness» for 2013—2016, compared the actual and planned values of the target indicators, revealed the shortcomings of strategic planning, showed the impact of planning shortcomings on the objectivity of the assessment of the effectiveness. On the basis of the analysis, we have developed the elements of the methodology for assessing the effectiveness and efficiency of state programs at the stage of preliminary diagnosis, taking into account the quality of institutional and methodological support for the formation of the strategic planning system. In order to improve the management of state development programs, improve the quality of strategic planning and reports on the evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of the implementation of state programs, we have developed the stages of the algorithm for assessing the quality of planning (evaluation of the validity of the planned values of the target indicators of the state program), which is an integral part of the methodology for assessing the effectiveness and efficiency of the state programs. Directions for further research lie in the development of methods for assessing the effectiveness and efficiency of state programs and in assessing the effectiveness and efficiency of state programs of industrial development in the Russian Federation.
Keywords: state programs; industrial development; efficiency; efficiency evaluation; planning quality; system of strategic planning of industrial development
Citation: S.V. Palash, Analysis of the formation and functioning of strategic planning of industry development in Russia. St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University Journal. Economics, 11 (2) (2018) 38—52. DOI: 10.18721/JE.11204
АНАЛИЗ ФОРМИРОВАНИЯ И ФУНКЦИОНИРОВАНИЯ СИСТЕМЫ СТРАТЕГИЧЕСКОГО ПЛАНИРОВАНИЯ РАЗВИТИЯ ПРОМЫШЛЕННОСТИ В РФ
С.В. Палаш
Костромской государственный университет, г. Кострома, Российская Федерация
Актуальность темы определяется формированием в России системы стратегического планирования, стратегий отдельных отраслей промышленности, существующими проблемами реализации и оценки эффективности государственных программ развития промышленности. Цель исследования — выполнить анализ формирования и функционирования системы стратегического планирования развития промышленности в России, выявить проблемы и обозначить пути их решения. Задачи исследования: анализ проблем формирования системы стратегического планирования российской развития промышленности; анализ текущего состояния стратегического планирования; выявление проблем реализации, а также результативности и эффективности государственных программ развития промышленности и обоснование влияния этих проблем на достижение целей промышленного развития; разработка элементов методики оценки результативности и эффективности государственных программ. Методы исследования: анализ нормативных и методических документов стратегического планирования, экономический анализ. Рассматриваются проблемы стратегического планирования в России, формирования стратегий социально-экономического развития и развития отдельных отраслей промышленности, формирования институционального и методического обеспечения стратегического планирования, оценки результативности и эффективности реализации государственных программ промышленного развития. Дан анализ динамики фактических значений целевых индикаторов Государственной программы РФ «Развитие промышленности и повышение ее конкурентоспособности» за 2013— 2016 годы. Сопоставлены фактические и плановые значения целевых индикаторов, выявлены недостатки стратегического планирования, показано влияние недостатков планирования на объективность оценки результативности и эффективности государственных программ развития промышленности. На основе анализа разработаны элементы методики оценки результативности и эффективности государственных программ на этапе предварительной диагностики с учетом качества институционально-методического обеспечения формирования системы стратегического планирования. С целью совершенствования управления государственными программами развития, повышения качества стратегического планирования и отчетов по оценке результативности и эффективности реализации государственных программ разработаны этапы алгоритма оценки качества планирования (оценки обоснованности плановых значений целевых индикаторов государственной программы), который является составной частью методики оценки результативности и эффективности государственной программы. Направления дальнейших исследований видятся в разработке методики оценки результативности и эффективности государственных программ и в оценке результативности и эффективности реализации государственных программ развития промышленности в России.
Ключевые слова: государственные программы; развитие промышленности; результативность; оценка эффективности; качество планирования; система стратегического планирования промышленного развития
Ссылка при цитировании: Палаш С.В. Анализ формирования и функционирования системы стратегического планирования развития промышленности в РФ // Научно-технические ведомости СПбГПУ. Экономические науки. 2018. Т. 11, № 2. С. 38—52. DOI: 10.1872VJE.n204
Introduction. The scientific literature, the political environment, the media are now actively discussing the issues of strategic planning, the formation of strategies for the socio-economic development of the national economy and individual sectors of the economy, the problems of assessing the effectiveness and efficiency of the implementation of state programs as tools for strategic planning, improving their efficiency. The formation of a new strategy for socio-economic development is very important, because it should become a strategy for Russian economy, and industry, in particular, to recover from the state of depression. With a new strategy of socioeconomic development, strategies for the development of individual sectors, on the basis of which state development programs can be developed, should be coordinated. Now the new legislative base of strategic planning and industrial policy, strategies of development of separate branches is developed, the number of tools of industrial policy increases, several state programs directed on the development of separate industries of the Russian Federation and the industrial complex as a whole are realized. However, the analysis of the implementation of state programs for the development of industry in recent years shows that the tools used do not yet give the planned result.
The goal of the study is the analysis of formation and functioning of strategic planning of industry development in the Russian Federation, revealing the problems and finding ways of solving them. The objectives of the study are analysis of the problems of formation of the system of strategic planning of industrial development in the Russian Federation; analysis of the current state of strategic planning of industrial development in the Russian Federation; identification of implementation problems, as well as analysis of the effectiveness and efficiency of state programs of industrial development and substantiation of the impact of these problems on achieving industrial development goals; development of elements of the methodology for assessing the effectiveness and efficiency of state programs.
Problems of forming a system of strategic planning of industry development. In our
opinion, the system of strategic planning of
industrial development includes legislative and regulatory framework of strategic planning of federal, regional, municipal levels, strategies of socio-economic development of macro-, meso-, micro levels, methodological support of strategic planning, forecasts of socio-economic development, accounts (reports) on the evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of state programs.
The problems of formation and implementation of socio-economic development strategies include, among other things, the lack of agreement in the scientific and political circles about the choice of macroeconomic management goals, means and target proportions of the object of management, as well as the lack of attention paid in the process of developing a strategy for the enterprise as the main structural unit of the organization of modern economy [12] and other problems.
Kleiner lists the following basic requirements for the strategy of socio-economic development of the country: reliance on the «image of the past» and «image of the present»; «image of the future»; multiple levels (macro-, meso-, micro-, nanostrategy); full coverage of economic spacetime; consistency; interaction with other types of strategies, in particular, with the strategy of economic security [10]. The «image of the future» is a systemic economy, whose signs include the integrity of economics as a subsystem of society; availability of mechanisms of coordination of interests of actors irrespective of their scales (including on the basis of mechanisms of multilevel system strategic planning); consistency of administrative decisions made at all hierarchical levels; consistent criteria of social justice and economic efficiency [11].
According to Methodical recommendations of the Ministry of economic development of Russia on preparation of strategies of development of branches of economy, one of the main tasks of development of strategies of branches of economy is «providing the most effective solution of the structural problems of the Russian economy that hinder social and economic development».1 It should be noted that the structural problems of the Russian
1 Guidelines for the preparation of strategies for the development of sectors of the economy. URL: http://economy.gov.ru (accessed February 22, 2018).
economy have been discussed for decades in scientific publications [4], and the analysis of their content in the past, as well as the current state shows that the problems are not solved, they have become more acute. In particular, economic policy and public administration mistakes are not the least mentioned among the structural constraints to economic growth and technological modernization of industry.
Industrial policy, the modernization of industry, import substitution, re-industrialization, restructuring, and risk management of industrial enterprises were discussed by Aganbegyan, Bodrunov and Glazyev [3], Greenberg and Dementiev [3], Kleiner [12], Kachalov, Lenchuk and Romano va [24, 25], Sukharev [21, 22], Tatarkin [23—25] and other Russian scientists. The questions of methodology of state management by objectives, evaluation of effectiveness and efficiency of state programs of social and economic development of regions are revealed in the works Ivanter [6], Lexin [6, 13, 14], Porfiryev [6, 13, 14], the scenario approach to the development of federal target programs of innovative nature, evaluation of the effectiveness of targeted state scientific and technical programs and federal medical programs in the application of high technology are described in studies by Dementyev [5], Pronichkin [20], Kapitsyn [7], Basyrov, Gerasimenko, Andronov. Issues of assessing the effectiveness of state development programs are addressed in the works of Karpov [8, 9], Lagzdin [9], Loginov [8, 9, 15], Korableva [8], Breusova [2], Markov [16], Markova, Yuzhakov [26], Dobrolyubova, Alexandrov, Aleksashina [1] and other authors.
The problems associated with monitoring and assessing the socio-economic effectiveness of implemented state programs have been discussed in the scientific literature for many years. These problems include: 1) «no clear definition of the objectives of state participation in the industry» [5]; 2) insufficient methodological and informational support for the development of state programs [5], lack of consistency of goals, objectives and target indicators of the program, insufficient justification for the selection of target indicators, lack of justification for determining the values of target indicators at different stages of the program [17, 18], etc.; 3) shortcomings of methods for assessing the efficiency of implementation of
the state programs [19], which is also acknowledged in reports on implementation of state programs of the Ministry of economic development;2 4) shortcomings of forecasts used to determine the values of target indicators of the program [5], and shortcomings of strategic planning [17, 18]; 5) absence of a reasonable distinction between the influence of external factors and direct participants in the implementation of programs on the results and effectiveness of their implementation, «differentiation of response measures to deviations of individual indicators from their intended values» [5], which leads to difficulty or inability to assess the effectiveness and efficiency, as well as the fact that participants may try to lower the planned values to be confident in their achievement.
The characteristic of the current state of the system of strategic planning of industrial development in Russia. The system of strategic planning in the Russian Federation is in the process of formation. A system of strategic planning of industrial development, part of which are state programs for the development of industry, is also being formed. Let us describe the current state of the system of strategic planning of industrial development in the Russian Federation, based on a comparison of the requirements for strategies for socio-economic development and the current state of the system of strategic planning; next, we shall identify the problems of strategic planning of industrial development in Russia (Tab. 1).
Thus, the current state of the system of strategic planning of industrial development partially complies with four of the six selected criteria of the requirements for socio-economic development strategies, and does not at all comply with two. Consider the compliance of the current state of the system of strategic planning of industrial development signs of the system economy as «image of the future» (Tab. 2).
2 Updated consolidated annual reports on the implementation and evaluation of the effectiveness of the state programs of the Russian Federation for 2014, 2015. Consolidated annual report on the implementation and evaluation of the effectiveness of the state programs of the Russian Federation for 2016. URL: http://prog rams.gov.ru/Portal/ (accessed February 12, 2018).
Table 2
Compliance of the current state of the system of strategic planning of industrial development with the features of the system economy as «image of the future»
Criterion Compliance* with the criterion Characteristic
The integrity of the industry as a subsystem of the economy and society If integrity means a property of programs (strategies) to provide completeness of the structure of the actions necessary for achieving objectives, and also consistency of communications between these actions, the current state of system of strategic planning of industrial development does not comply with this criterion owing to the above-mentioned shortcomings and problems of strategic planning
Existence of mechanisms of coordination of interests of actors irrespective of their scales (including on the basis of mechanisms of multilevel system strategic planning) Higher-level strategic planning documents often do not take into account the problems of the development of lower-level socio-economic systems (do not take into account the problems of co-financing of individual instruments from the regions, the problems of the functioning of individual industries and complexes, individual industrial enterprises)
Consistency and consistency of management decisions at all hierarchical levels Inconsistency in the development and approval of strategic planning documents at different levels of hierarchy, which can lead to increased costs of strategic planning, inconsistency (misalignment) of individual tools and measures, etc.
Consistency of criteria of social justice and economic efficiency The strategic planning documents do not deal with reconciling the criteria of social justice and economic efficiency; there are indicators (target indicators) that characterize the economic efficiency of the evaluated systems; there are no indicators that characterize social justice, and, therefore, it is impossible to conclude about the consistency or inconsistency
Source: compiled by the author based on the criteria [11], as well as on the analysis of normative and methodological documents of strategic planning.
Note: * «+» — full compliance; «+ / — « partial compliance «-» — mismatch.
Let us consider the correspondence of the system of strategic planning of industrial development to the requirement of consistency of management decisions taken at all hierarchical levels. There is a certain hierarchy of strategic planning documents: sectoral development strategies (individual industries) should be based on strategic planning documents of the federal level: federal law, Strategy of social and economic development of the Russian Federation, Strategic forecast of the Russian Federation, Forecasts of social and economic development of the Russian Federation for the long and medium term, etc. In 2016—2018, projects are devised and strategies are approved for the development of certain industries for the period up to 2030 (aviation, automotive, chemical and petrochemical complex, industry for processing, recycling and disposal of production and consumption waste, building
materials industry, etc.); these projects and strategies are based on documents of a higher level of hierarchy, adopted in 2008 for the period up to 2020 (in particular, Strategy for socioeconomic development of the Russian Federation in the current edition of «The Concept of socio-economic development of Russia up to 2020»), that do not take into account the changes over the past period of time, economic and political conditions. The development and approval of a new strategy for socio-economic development will either entail a change in the already approved sectoral policies, passports of government programs (which will increase the transaction costs of the strategic planning process), or the strategic planning system will be fragmented, contradictory (if strategies at different levels of hierarchy do not agree), or the strategy for socio-economic development will be fragmentary and
uninformative. In the short, medium and/or long term, all three of these options will have a negative impact on the quality of the formation of the strategic planning system, the effectiveness of state support measures for industry and the effectiveness of the cost measures aimed at the implementation.
Thus, in the existing system of strategic planning, the «image of the future» of the industrial complex is not worked out systematically enough, and significant efforts are needed to finalize it.
Quality of strategic planning of state programs of development of the industry and problems of analysis of efficiency and of their implementation.
We have analyzed the dynamics of the actual values of the target indicators of the state program of the Russian Federation «Development of industry and improvement of its competitiveness» for 2013—2016, compared the actual and planned values. Let us consider the dynamics of the actual values of the target indicators of the state program of the Russian Federation «Development of industry and improvement of its competitiveness» for 2013—2016 (Fig. 1, 2), compare the planned and actual values for 2016 (Fig. 3), as well as the
planned values of 2016 with the actual ones for
2015 (Fig. 4).
Industrial production has been declining since 2014 compared to the previous year. Optimistic planning values for 2016 have not been achieved. In 2014, 2015, labor productivity decreased. In 2016, there is a positive increase in labor productivity and the volume of investments in fixed assets, but the actual values of these indicators in
2016 are lower than planned. For two consecutive years, the number of high-performance jobs has been decreasing in relation to the previous year: by 8.1 % in 2015 and by 4.8 % in 2016. The share of costs for technological innovations in the total volume of goods shipped, work performed, services remains at a fairly low level: 2 % in 2016. Innovative activity of industrial production organizations is less than 10 % in 2014 and 2015, and 10 % in 2016. The optimistic target value of 50 % was not achieved in 2016. The planned value in terms of exports of Russian high-tech goods is also not achieved.
In 2016, three indices (industrial production, labor productivity, physical volume of investments in fixed assets by the previous year) show positive gains, but do not reach the planned values.
4,8 ■ ces, -
Index of growth of high-performance workplace|^ -8,1 % to the previous year 3,9
■ 7,9
Index of physical volume of investments in fixed assets, as of the previous year, %
The index of labor productivity, from previous year,
%
The index of industrial production by 2011, %
Index of industrial production, to the previous year,
%
104.2
103.3 100,0 101,7
103,3 8,9 97,4
I 102,7
103,1 102,0 102,7 105,4
96,7 I 95,3 ■ 97,3 100,3
-20,0 0,0 20,0 40,0 60,0 80,0 100,0 120,0
Fig. 1. Dynamics of values of separate target indicators of the state program of the Russian Federation «Development of industry and improvement of its competitiveness» ( ) — 2016; ( ) — 2015; ( ) — 2014; ( ) — 2013
2,15 2,10 2,05 2,00 1,95 1,90 1,85 1,80 1,75 1,70 1,65
35
30
25
20
15
10
2013
2014
2015
2016
Fig. 2. Dynamics of values of individual indicators of innovative activity of industrial enterprises on the basis of the Consolidated annual report on the implementation and evaluation of the effectiveness of the state programs of the Russian Federation in 2016 (( i) — share of expenses on technological innovations in total volume of the shipped goods, the performed works, services of the organizations of industrial production, %; — innovative activity of organizations
of industrial production (the share of the organizations of industrial production performing technological, organizational and (or) marketing innovations in total number of the surveyed organizations), %
5
0
Thus, the dynamics of the actual values of the target indicators of the program indicates a decline in industrial production, a decrease in labor productivity, low innovation activity and a reduction in external demand for Russian hightech goods. Despite the negative dynamics of many indicators in 2014—2015, the planned values of the target indicators for 2016 are overly optimistic, which indicates the poor quality of forecasting and planning.
The summary annual report of the Ministry of economic development on the implementation and evaluation of the effectiveness of state programs of the Russian Federation for 20163 provides the following justification for deviation of the values of actual indicators from the planned state program «Development of industry and improvement of its competitiveness»: low
3 Updated consolidated annual reports on the implementation and evaluation of the effectiveness of the state programs of the Russian Federation for 2014, 2015. Consolidated annual report on the implementation and evaluation of the effectiveness of the state programs of the Russian Federation for 2016. URL: http://pro grams.gov.ru/Portal/ (accessed February 12, 2018).
(insufficient) rates of recovery of industry due to the economic crisis; decrease in business activity; collapse of consumer demand during the crisis; low rates of recovery of consumer demand; the collapse of consumer demand during the crisis; lack of confidence in the growth of incomes in the future; drop in demand for investment goods during the crisis, etc. In 2014, the Ministry of economic development stated that the the main reasons for the failure to meet the planned values were «the decline in production caused by a reduction in solvent demand, an increase in interest rates on loans, as well as an increase in prices for imported components due to a decrease in the national currency» (which was not least due to structural problems and current financial policy), a reduction in the volume of production of main types of products and underloading of production capacities of enterprises.
Next, let us examine the indicators of effectiveness of implementation of the state program «Development of industry and improvement of its competitiveness» in 2014— 2016 (Tab. 3).
Level of harmonization of national standards of the Russian ' 0,91 Federation with international standards (Rosstandart), %
The proportion of non-budgetary funds in domestic spending 1,00 on research and development, %
Share of budget funds in the internal costs of research and ' 1,00 development, %
-6,3
The export of Russian high-tech goods, %
1,1
Innovative activity of organizations of industrial production 0,20
(the share of the organizations of industrial production 10 performing technological, organizational and (or) marketing...
Share of expenses on technological innovations in total volume | 1 00
of the shipped goods, the performed works, services of the 2
organizations of industrial production, % 2
The index of physical volume of investments in fixed capital (a 1105 measure that focuses on the investment and intermediate demand), % to the previous year
The index of labor productivity (a measure that focuses on the ' 0,94 investment and intermediate demand), % to the previous year
The index of industrial production (a measure that focuses on ' 0,88 the investment and intermediate demand), % by 2011
The index of industrial production (a measure that focuses on | 0 99 the investment and intermediate demand), % to the previous year
Index of physical volume of investments in fixed assets (indicator oriented to the consumer market), % of the previous year
0,66
The index of labor productivity (a measure that focuses on the ' 1,00 consumer market), % of the previous year
The index of industrial production (a measure that focuses on the consumer market), % by 2011
0,66
The index of industrial production (a measure that focuses on ' 0,96 the consumer market), % of the previous year
Index of growth of high-performance workplaces, % to^e previous year ,
8,4
Index of physical volume of investments in fixed assets, as of 0,98 the previous year, %
The index of labor productivity, from previous year, % The index of industrial production by 2011, % Index of industrial production, to the previous year, %
0,99
0,89
0,94
■ 50
55
■ 37 37
63 63
50
70,8
■ 111,2 106
■ 102,1 108,5
98,3
112,3
101,3 102,5
107,6
106,7 ■ 106,6
91,6
■ 102,8 106,7
104,2 106
103,3 ■ 104
103,1
96,7 103,2
139,6
116,2
Fig. 3. Achievement of the planned values of target indicators of the state program in 2016 P) — % execution of plan; ( ) — 2016 fact; (■) — 2016 plan
Level of harmonization of national standards of the Russian ' 1,10
Federation with international standards (Rosstandart), % jq55
The proportion of non-budgetary funds in domestic spending ' 1,00
on research and development, % ^^^^^^^^ 37
Share of budget funds in the internal costs of research and ' 1,00
development, % 63
I 2,75
The export of Russian high-tech goods, % T 1,1
0,4
Innovative activity of organizations of industrial production H 5 38
(the share of the organizations of industrial production ^^ 50
performing technological, organizational and (or) marketing... 9,3
Share of expenses on technological innovations in total volume | 111
of the shipped goods, the performed works, services of the I 2
organizations of industrial production, % 1,8
The index of physical volume of investments in fixed capital (a 1,01
measure that focuses on the investment and intermediate 106
demand), % to the previous year 104,5
The index of labor productivity (a measure that focuses on the ' 1,09 108 5
investment and intermediate demand), % to the previous year ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 99 9 ,
The index of industrial production (a measure that focuses on 1,09 112,3
the investment and intermediate demand), % by 2011 103 3 ,
The index of industrial production (a measure that focuses on | 106
the investment and intermediate demand), % to the previous 102,5
year 97,1
Index of physical volume of investments in fixed assets | 1 34
(indicator oriented to the consumer market), % of the previous 107,6 year
The index of labor productivity (a measure that focuses on the ' 1,12
Index of growth of high-performance workplaces, % to the
8,4
previous year -8,1
Index of physical volume of investments in fixed assets, as of ' 1,03 the previous year, %
80,3
consumer market), % of the previous year ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 95 5'06,6
The index of industrial production (a measure that focuses on ' 1,68 139 6
the consumer market), % by 2011 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 829
The index of industrial production (a measure that focuses on 1,33 106,7
the consumer market), % of the previous year 80,4 106,7
■ 106 103,3
1,05
The index of labor productivity, from previous year, % 104
98,9
1,14
The index of industrial production by 2011, % 116,2
102
1,08
Index of industrial production, to the previous year, % 103,2
95,3
Fig. 4. Increase in the target values of the state program of 2016 compared to the actual values of 2015 P) — relation on the 2016 plan to the 2015 fact; ( ) — 2016 plan; P) — 2015 fact
Table 3
Evaluation of the effectiveness of the state program «Development of industry and improvement
of its competitiveness», %
Indicators of evaluation of the state program 2014 2015 2016
Degree of achievement of target indicators of the state program of the Russian Federation 86.6 68.5 86.1
Degree of implementation of control events of the state program 93.4 49.3 93.2
Level of cash execution of expenses of the federal budget 99.94 93.0 92.4
Estimate of the effectiveness of the executive in charge (Ministry of industry and trade of the Russian Federation) — 25 25
Degree of efficiency of the state program 93.3 56.5 76.6
Rating estimate — 28 of 32 30 of 37
Source: Updated consolidated annual reports on the implementation and evaluation of the effectiveness of the state programs of the Russian Federation for 2014, 2015. Consolidated annual report on the implementation and evaluation of the effectiveness of the state programs of the Russian Federation for 2016. URL: http://programs.gov.ru/Portal/ (accessed February 12, 2018).
According to the consolidated annual reports on the implementation and evaluation of the effectiveness of the state programs of the Russian Federation for 2014, 2015, 2016, the degree of achievement of the targets of the state program «Development of industry and improvement of its competitiveness» for the period under review did not rise above 86.6 %. The highest performance indicators of the state program for the period under review were in 2014. In 2015, the values of indicators decreased. The degree of effectiveness of the state program in 2015 amounted to 56.6 %, and to 76.6 % in 2016. At the end of 2015, the state program ranked only 28th in the efficiency rating, among the 32 implemented state programs. In 2016, the level of cash execution of Federal budget expenditures decreased, the performance assessment of the executive in charge (Ministry of industry and trade of the Russian Federation) remained at a fairly low level (25 %), but the degree of achievement of targets, the degree of implementation of control events and the degree of efficiency of the state program as a whole increased. However, in the ranking of the effectiveness of state programs, the program «Development of industry and improvement of its competitiveness» was only at the 30th place out of the total 37 in 2016. Thus, the program of industry development in 2015 and 2016 was one of the most inefficient.
It should be noted that the annual report of 2015 of the Ministry of economic development4
4 Updated consolidated annual reports on the implementation and evaluation of the effectiveness of the state programs of the Russian Federation for 2014, 2015. Consolidated annual report on the implementation and evaluation of the effectiveness of the state programs of the Russian Federation for 2016. URL: http://progr ams.gov.ru/Portal/ (accessed February 12, 2018).
recognizes the need to improve the quality of strategic planning, as well as to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of implementation of state programs, including improving the system of risk assessment of implementation of state programs and methods of their management, and improve the methods of evaluating the effectiveness of state programs.
The steps in the algorithm for assessing the appropriateness of the planned values of target indicators of the state program. Since performance and hence the effectiveness of the state program can be assessed only if the planning quality is sufficient (the validity of the planned values of the target indicators), the analysis of the achievement of the planned values of the target indicators at the stage of evaluating the effectiveness of the state program should be preceded by an analysis of the quality of planning. If the planned annual values are not achieved, if with the negative annual dynamics of the actual values of the target indicators it is planned to increase the values of these indicators for the next year by 25 %, 50 %, or 2-5 times, or if the values of target indicators are planned below the actual values of the base year, it should be concluded that the quality of planning is low, the planned values are not justified, and, therefore, on the basis of a comparison of actual values with these planned indicators it is impossible to evaluate the impact of implementation of the state program and accordingly, an evaluation of its effectiveness. In this case, the evaluation of the effectiveness of the program will be purely formal and will not provide useful information for the management process and, in the worst case (if further management decisions are made on the basis of this evaluation),
will contribute to the adoption of inefficient and even inadequate management decisions.
To assess the quality of planning, it is necessary to analyze whether target indicator target values were 'chronically' not achieved in the previous years, analyze the dynamics of the actual values of target indicators for a number of years, calculate and analyze the ratio of planned values of the target indicator to their actual values in the previous year (or years). We propose the following stages of the algorithm for assessing the quality of planning (validity of the planned values of the target indicators of the state program), which is an integral part of the methodology for assessing the effectiveness and efficiency of the state program (Fig. 5).
The poor quality of planning is certainly not the only reason for insufficient effectiveness of the state program for the development of industry. One of the reasons for the lack of effectiveness of the measures used in recent years to support domestic industry, from our point of view, is the lack of taking into account the assessment of the impact of the instruments used on the object of regulation. Unfortunately,
certain instruments of industrial policy with limited funding cannot eliminate the consequences of the decade of restrictive monetary policy, «unwavering» adherence to the principles of market fundamentalism in the process of implementing the economic policy, solve the problems of long-term investment hunger, insufficient innovation activity, reduction of industrial production, loss of entire segments of domestic and foreign markets.
In the context of the economic recession, the existing structural imbalances, the unfavorable foreign policy situation and economic sanctions, a mere «dispersion» of funds between the targeted instruments of industrial policy will not lead to economic growth and growth of industrial production, even if the number of these instruments constantly increases. The industrial complex needs systematic mutually coordinated actions over a long period of time, substantial investments, a review of monetary policy priorities in support of industrial manufacturing enterprises, the implementation of the stimulating function of tax policy, stimulating demand in order to give a tangible impetus to the recovery and development of industry.
Fig. 5. Stages of the algorithm for assessing the validity of the planned values
of the target indicators of the state program
Note *: in order to decide on an acceptable quality of planning sufficient to assess performance, it is necessary to assess the feasibility of the planned increases, taking into account the nature of economic dynamics, external and internal factors, the adequacy of resources, as well as the financial support of the state program and/or individual sub-programs and activities (planned and actual).
Summary
1. The article analyzes the formation and functioning of the strategic planning system of industrial development in the Russian Federation; identifies the shortcomings and substantiates their impact on achieving the industrial development goals. We have considered the shortcomings: the insufficiently systematically elaborated «image of the future» of the industrial complex, including the selection of goals, objectives, a set of target indicators, the definition and justification of their planned values; low quality of forecasts of socioeconomic development, which reduces the quality of strategic planning; insufficient, fragmented coverage of micro-level strategic planning documents; the strategic planning documents of a higher level often fail to address the problems of development of socio-economic systems of a lower level; inconsistency in the development and approval of strategic planning documents at different levels of the hierarchy, which can lead to an increase in the cost of strategic planning, inconsistency (mismatch) of individual tools and measures and other problems, and therefore, in the short, medium and/or long term will have a negative impact on the quality of formation of the strategic planning system, the effectiveness of state support measures for the industry and the effectiveness of the implementation of these measures.
2. To assess the current state of strategic planning of industry development in Russia, we have analyzed the dynamics of the actual values of the target indicators of the state program of the Russian Federation «Development of industry and improvement of its competitiveness» for 2013—2016, compared the actual and planned values of the target indicators, revealed the shortcomings of strategic planning, showed the impact of planning shortcomings on the objectivity of the assessment of the effectiveness. The dynamics of the actual values of the target indicators of the program points to the following problems of its implementation: a decline in industrial production, a decrease in labor productivity, a reduction in high-performance jobs, low innovation activity and a decrease in external demand for Russian high-tech goods. Despite the negative dynamics of many indicators in 2014—2015, the planned values of the target
indicators for 2016 proved to be overly optimistic and for most of the target indicators were not achieved, which indicates the low quality of forecasting and planning. The insufficient quality of planning significantly complicates the assessment of the effectiveness and efficiency of the state program, reduces the information content and usefulness of efficiency assessment reports for the management process.
3. On the basis of the analysis, we have developed the elements of the methodology for assessing the effectiveness and efficiency of state programs at the stage of preliminary diagnosis, taking into account the quality of institutional and methodological support for the formation of the strategic planning system. In order to improve the management of state development programs, improve the quality of strategic planning and reports on the evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of the implementation of state programs, we have developed the stages of the algorithm for assessing the quality of planning (evaluation of the validity of the planned values of the target indicators of the state program), which is an integral part of the methodology for assessing the effectiveness and efficiency of the state program.
4. Based on the analysis of the dynamics of the actual values of the target indicators of the state program, it is shown that certain instruments of industrial policy with limited funding, unfortunately, cannot eliminate the consequences of the ongoing decade of restrictive monetary policy, solve the problems of long-term shortage of investment in industry, reduction of industrial production, low innovation activity of industrial enterprises. The use of targeted instruments of industrial policy will not ensure economic growth and growth of industrial production. In order to give a tangible impetus to the recovery and development of industry, systematic and coordinated actions of state support for industrial production, significant investment, demand stimulation and stimulating financial policy are needed.
Directions of further research are in the development of methods for assessing the effectiveness and efficiency of state programs and in assessing the effectiveness and efficiency of state programs of industrial development in the Russian Federation.
REFERENCES
[1] T.V. Aleksashina, Program and target planning in industry development, Business Strategies (analysis, forecast, management), 3 (35) (2017) 14—20.
[2] A.G. Breusova, Assessing the effectiveness of public programs, The Bulletin of Omsk University. Series «Economy», 2 (2015) 128—136.
[3] S.Yu. Glazyev, V.E. Dementiev, Formation of a new technological structure in Russian economy, Nanotechnology as a key factor of a new technological mode in the economy. Under the editorship of Academician S. Glazyev and Professor V.V. Kharitonov, Moscow, Trivant, 2009.
[4] S.Y. Glazyev, V.V. Ivanter, V.L. Makarov, D.A. Nekipelov, A.I. Tatarkin, R.S. Greenberg, G.G. Fetisov, V.A. Tsvetkov, S.A. Batchikov, M.V. Ershov, D.A. Mityaev, Yu.A. Petrov, On the strategy of development of Russia's economy: Preprint. Ed. S.Yu. Glazyev, Moscow, UN Academy of Sciences, 2011.
[5] V.E. Dementyev, Scenario approach to the development of Federal target programs of innovative nature, Bulletin of the University (State University of Management), 2 (23) (2008) 164—192.
[6] V.V. Ivanter, V.N. Leksin, B.N. Porfiryev, Arctic mega-project in the system of state interests and public administration, Problem analysis and state management design, 6 (2014) 6—24.
[7] V.M. Kapitsyn, V.A. Basurov, O.A. Gerasimenko, L.N. Andronov, Some estimates of the impact of Federal medical programs for the use of high technology, Problems of Forecasting, 4 (157) (2016) 140—150.
[8] V.V. Karpov, A.A. Korableva, K.K. Loginov, A.G. Breusova. State programs as a tool of assessment and ensuring of economic security of region (on example of Omsk region), Vestnik of Tomsk State University. Economy. 4 (32) (2015) 240—253.
[9] V.V. Karpov, A.Yu. Lugsdin, K.K. Loginov. Evaluation of the effectiveness of municipal programs with the use of component analysis, Vestnik SibADI, 5 (51) (2016) 157—165.
[10] G.B. Kleiner, The Report at the V International scientific conference «Institutional Economics: development, teaching, application», November 15-16, 2017, State University of Management, Moscow.
[11] G.B. Kleiner, From the «economy of individuals» to the system economy, Questions of economy, 8 (2017) 56—74.
[12] G.B. Kleiner, System modernization of domestic enterprises: theoretical rationale, concepts, principles, Economy of region, 13 (1) (2017) 13—24.
[13] V.N. Leksin, B.N. Porfiriev, Evaluation of the effectiveness of state programs for socio-economic development of regions of Russia, Problems of Forecasting, 4 (157) (2016) 81 — 94.
PALASH Svetlana V. E-mail: svpalash@yandex.ru
[14] V.N. Leksin, B.N. Porfiryev, Reconstruction of the Russian Arctic as a subject of system research and state program-target management: methodological issues, Economy of region, 4 (2015) 9—20.
[15] K.K. Loginov, A.A. Korableva, A.G. Breusova, The Algorithm for evaluating the effectiveness of state programs by the example of Omsk region, Vestnik of Omsk University. Series «Economy», 4 (2015) 226—232.
[16] S.M. Markov, A.S. Markov, Targets (indicators) as the criteria of a complex estimation of efficiency of realization of state programs of support of small and medium enterprises, Bulletin of the Pskov State University, 5 (2017) 132—137.
[17] S.V. Palash, The state program of development of agriculture of the Kostroma region: dysfunction of strategic planning, Journal of international scientific researches, 8 (3) (2016) 93—101.
[18] S.V. Palash, Institutionalmethodic support of state development programs as strategic planning tools, St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University Journal. Economics, 4 (246) (2016) 10—20. DOI: 10.5862/JE.246.1
[19] S.V. Palash, Methodology and methods of evaluating the effectiveness of implementation of government programs (on the example the program «Development of agriculture and regulation of markets of agricultural products, raw materials and food in Kostroma region for 2013—2020 years»), Journal of international scientific researches, 8 (4) (2016) 11—20.
[20] S.V. Pronichkin, Absorption potential of results of target state scientific and technical programs: experience of empirical research, Economic analysis: theory and practice, 1 (2016) 30—42.
[21] O.S. Sukharev, Industry of Russia: problems of development and system solutions, Vestnik of the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2 (2016) 69—87.
[22] O.S. Sukharev, The Theory of economy restructuring: principles, criteria and models development, Moscow, LENAND, 2016.
[23] A.I. Tatarkin, Industrial policy as the basis for a systemic modernization of the Russian economy, Vestnik of Chelyabinsk State University, 19 (2008) 5—17.
[24] A.I. Tatarkin, O.A. Romanova, Industrial policy and its implementation: a systematic approach, Economy of region, 3 (2007) 19—31.
[25] A.I. Tatarkin, O.A. Romanova, Industrial policy: genesis, regional peculiarities and legislative support, Economics of region, 2 (2014) 9—21.
[26] V. Yuzhakov, E. Dobrolyubova, O. Aleksandrov, How to assess the effectiveness of the implementation of state programs: methodological issues, Economic policy, 10 (6) (2015) 79—98.
СПИСОК ЛИТЕРАТУРЫ
[1] Алексашина Т.В. Программно-целевое планирование в развитии промышленности // Стратегии бизнеса (анализ, прогноз, управление). 2017. № 3(35). С. 14-20.
[2] Бреусова А.Г. Оценка эффективности государственных программ // Вестник Омского университета. Серия «Экономика». 2015. № 2. С. 128-136.
[3] Глазьев С.Ю., Дементьев В.Е. Становление нового технологического уклада в российской экономике // Нанотехнологии как ключевой фактор нового технологического уклада в экономике / под ред. акад. РАН С.Ю. Глазьева и проф. В.В. Харитонова. М.: Тровант, 2009.
[4] Глазьев С.Ю., Ивантер В.В., Макаров В.Л., Некипелов А.Д., Татаркин А.И., Гринберг Р.С., Фетисов Г.Г., Цветков В.А., Батчиков С.А., Ершов М.В., Митяев Д.А., Петров Ю.А. О стратегии развития экономики России: [препринт] / под ред. С.Ю. Глазьева. М: ООН РАН, 2011. 48 с.
[5] Дементьев В.Е. Сценарный подход к разработке федеральных целевых программ инновационного характера // Вестник университета (Государственный университет управления). № 2 (23). 2008. С. 164-192.
[6] Ивантер В.В., Лексин В.Н., Порфирьев Б.Н. Арктический мега-проект в системе государственных интересов и государственного управления // Проблемный анализ и государственно-управленческое проектирование. 2014. № 6. С. 6-24.
[7] Капицын В.М., Басуров В.А., Герасименко О.А., Андронова Л.Н. Некоторые оценки результативности федеральных медицинских программ в части применения высоких технологий // Проблемы прогнозирования. 2016. № 4 (157). С. 140-150.
[8] Карпов В.В., Кораблева А.А., Логинов К.К., Бреусова А.Г. Государственные программы как инструмент оценки и обеспечения экономической безопасности региона (на примере Омской области) // Вестник Томского государственного университета. Серия «Экономика». 2015. № 4 (32). С. 240-253.
[9] Карпов В.В., Лагздин А.Ю., Логинов К.К.
Оценка эффективности муниципальных программ с применением компонентного анализа // Вестник Сибирской государственной автомобильно-дорожной академии, 2016. Вып. 5 (51). С. 157-165.
[10] Клейнер Г.Б. Институциональная экономика: развитие, преподавание, приложения: матер. V Междунар. науч. конф., 15-16 ноября 2017 г., Москва / Государственный университет управления. М.: Изд. дом ГУУ.
[11] Клейнер Г.Б. От «экономики физических лиц» к системной экономике // Вопросы экономики. 2017. № 8. С. 56-74.
[12] Клейнер Г.Б. Системная модернизация отечественных предприятий: теоретическое обоснование, мотивы, принципы // Экономика региона. 2017. Т. 13. Вып. 1. С. 13-24.
[13] Лексин В.Н., Порфирьев Б.Н. Оценка результативности государственных программ социально-экономического развития регионов России // Проблемы прогнозирования. 2016. № 4 (157). С. 81-94.
[14] Лексин В.Н., Порфирьев Б.Н. Переосвоение российской Арктики как предмет системного исследования и государственного программно-целевого управления: вопросы методологии // Экономика региона. 2015. № 4. С. 9-20.
[15] Логинов К.К., Кораблева А. А., Бреусова А.Г. Алгоритм оценки эффективности государственных программ на примере Омской области // Вестник Омского университета. Серия «Экономика». 2015. № 4. С. 226-232.
[16] Марков С.М., Маркова А.С. Целевые показатели (индикаторы) как критерии комплексной оценки эффективности реализации государственных программ поддержки малого и среднего предпринимательства // Вестник Псковского государственного университета. 2017. № 5. С. 132-137.
[17] Палаш С.В. Государственные программы развития АПК Костромской области: дисфункции стратегического планирования // Международные научные исследования. 2016. № 3. С. 93—101.
[18] Палаш С.В. Институционально-методическое обеспечение государственных программ развития как инструментов стратегического планирования // Научно-технические ведомости СПбГПУ. Экономические науки. 2016. № 4 (246). С. 10-20. Б01: 10.5862/Ж246.1
[19] Палаш С.В. Методология и методика оценки эффективности реализации государственных программ (на примере программы «Развитие сельского хозяйства и регулирование рынков сельскохозяйственной продукции, сырья и продовольствия Костромской области на 2013-2020 годы») // Международные научные исследования. 2016. № 4. С. 11-20.
[20] Проничкин С.В. Абсорбционный потенциал результатов целевых государственных научно-технических программ: опыт эмпирического исследования // Экономический анализ: теория и практика. 2016. № 1. С. 30-42.
[21] Сухарев О.С. Промышленность России: проблемы развития и системные решения //
Вестник Института экономики Российской академии наук. 2016. № 2. С. 69-87.
[22] Сухарев О.С. Теория реструктуризации экономики: принципы, критерии и модели развития. М.: ЛЕНАНД. 2016.
[23] Татаркин А.И. Промышленная политика как основа системной модернизации экономики России // Вестник Челябинского государственного университета. 2008. № 19. С. 5—17.
[24] Татаркин А.И., Романова О.А. Промышленная политика и механизм ее реализации: сис-
темный подход // Экономика региона. 2007. № 3. С. 19—31.
[25] Татаркин А.И. Романова О.А. Промышленная политика: генезис, региональные особенности и законодательное обеспечение // Экономика региона. 2014. № 2. С. 9—21.
[26] Южаков В., Добролюбова Е., Александров О. Как оценить результативность реализации государственных программ: вопросы методологии // Экономическая политика. 2015. Т. 10, № 6. С. 79—98.
ПАЛАШ Светлана Витальевна. E-mail: svpalash@yandex.ru
Статья поступила в редакцию 12.03.18
© Peter the Great Saint-Petersburg Polytechnic University, 2018
