CC BY
81
mation to all economic agents, mobility factor; due to the dominance of economy in the public system state performs the function of maintaining existing economic relations, market as the main form of communication between agents in the modern world, as well as the main market mechanism - competition, with the help of relevant institutions state protects the existing structure of property relations; in order to harmonize the various spheres of public life state performs the function of forms of market relations development [6, p. 116 - 132].
Economics identifies a number of properties inherent in the economic functions of the state as a system. In particular, the public properties of these functions include integrity and hierarchy. Specific properties of the system of economic functions of state include blurred boundaries of subsystems when the same economic entity may simultaneously be involved in various processes of self-organization of the economy - the dynamic of the system; realization of the economic functions of state in both open and closed national economic system; manifestation of economic power with respect to administrative subordination of self-organization of these functions arising from the cooperation of actors and institutions at different levels [2, p. 19 - 20]. I.K. Babaytseva identifies three main economic functions of state as an example of the institutionalization of management functions - regulatory, business, protection and support functions - and rightfully stresses that state fulfills all the functions inherent in the economic institutions in general - integrating, information, regulatory and negentropy (sustainability and improved organization of the national economy ) functions.
The transformation of the economic functions of state is not only connected with the development of the state as an institution of modern society, but also with changes in the nature of regulated processes. The modern economy is an economy of different systems (technical, technological, innovation, investment, resource, etc.). The market mechanism of regulation increasingly becomes a function of aggregate market complexes and related to the activities of institutional structures - major financial-industrial groups and integrated business groups. National markets are becoming objects of the global market state regulation.
In a globalized world an international component of each of the economic functions of state becomes more important. It can be proved by the following: concrete objects of regulation are the structure of the national economy (sectoral, reproducible, regional), employment, competitive environment, technical and scientific progress, social sphere (education, healthcare, culture, etc.). None of these objects of regulation can operate in isolation from global processes. The structure of national economy now is largely determined by the degree of its integration into the global
economic space and by the forms of its participation. Employment in the domestic market is heavily dependent on global migration flows; competitive environment is formed by internal and world market, etc. The processes of globalization of national economies are developing so rapidly and extensively that modern nation-states are not fully ready for them and not to an equal extent. Given all these factors and objective processes a conclusion can be made that at present a profound transformation of the economic functions of state and entire system of state regulation is taking place. If during the first half of the XXth century state fulfilled the role of the sole regulator of national economy, in the context of globalization of the XXIst century being remaining a strong macroeconomic entity it has to take into account objective trends and share its monopoly as a regulator with other actors and institutions at the global level. State has to strengthen its role in those spheres of national economy where it has monopoly (eg, national economic security). But it has torevise its activities in those spheres of national economy which are largely governed by other powerful institutions of the modern global economy.
The state has been the only macroeconomic regulator of the national economy until the first half of XXth century. Areas of exclusive state regulation of national economies in the globalizing world are shrinking, now there are areas regulated by other global players. Co-regulation of national economies by state and other global institutions becomes an important area. The economic functions of state in the context of globalization remain significant but their traditional content is expanded with new elements related to the globalization of economic space and with the strengthening of the international component of the national economy. State has to revise all its economic functions and complement (adjust) them taking into account prevailing trends of the global order.
1. Абалкин Л.И. Россия: поиск самоопределения. М.: Наука, 2008.
2. Бабайцева И.К. Механизм реализации экономических функций государства. Теоретические основы исследования. Саратов, 2006.
3. Делягин М., Шеянов В. Мир наизнанку. Чем закончиться кризис для России. М., 2009.
4. Кузык Б., Яковец М. Россия 2050:стратегия инновационного прорыва. М., 2004.
5. Серегина С.Ф. Роль государства в экономике. М., 2002.
6. Тамбовцев В.Л. Государство и переходная экономика: пределы управляемости. М., 1997.
7. Шамхалов Ф.И. Государство и экономика. Основы взаимодействия. М., 2007.
8. Шаститко А. Дискретные институциональные альтернативы в контексте дерегулирования экономики // Вопросы экономики. 2004. № 12.
удк 330.111.62 A. Yu. Nazarov
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN MODERN ECONOMY: NEW ASPECTS OF ITS PROTECTION
The paper considers the development of intellectual property institution in connection with innovation development of modern economy.
Key words: institution, intellectual property, protection of intellectual property rights, innovation economy.
А.Ю. Назаров
ИНТЕЛЛЕКТУАЛЬНАЯ СОБСТВЕННОСТЬ В СОВРЕМЕННОЙ ЭКОНОМИКЕ: НОВЫЕ АСПЕКТЫ ЗАШИТЫ
В статье рассматривается развитие института интеллектуальной собственности во взаимосвязи с процессом инновационного развития современной экономики.
Ключевые слова: институт, интеллектуальная собственность, защита прав интеллектуальной собственности, инновационная экономика.
Innovation economy faces a number of challenges the most important of which are related to the new role of intellectual property in society. This is due to the fact that intellectual property is an integral component of the innovation process. A large part of innovation is the practical use of intellectual property rights created and acquired by a business entity. Many innovations are based on the protectable results of intellectual activity. In addition, various elements of intellectual property are generated during innovative transformations. Thus, in effect intellectual property structures include all items, sources and results of innovation.
The process of transforming into an innovation economy significantly impacted the intellectual property system. First of all, it concerns the understanding of this category. The term “intellectual property” has been known for a long time, but in the modern economy when scientific and technological progress significantly accelerated it has acquired a special significance. This is due to the nature of ownership in intellectual production which is based on knowledge. Knowledge is considered as result of human intellectual activity in science, technology, literature, art, business, etc. and intellectual resource for any company.
The manifestations of knowledge in the external environment are very diverse. It is not always that knowledge is expressed in words. It can be text, graphics, sound, etc. The combination of knowledge with material objects in the process of objectification leads to the creation of a new product which contains two elements: material benefit and intangible benefit. Value and usefulness of this product are entirely determined by its non-material intangible element which is its principal source part. Tangible material “shell” only serves as a tangible vehicle of intangible benefits. Thus, the new objectified product does not lose intellectual value.
Isolated and objectified in some tangible form intellectual property items show a number of similarities with objects of material and tangible property:
1) They are the result of human creative activity, they are created in the manufacturing process and require the involvement of relevant factors, i.e. have some value;
2) they are able to satisfy certain human needs, i.e. have use-value;
3) they can be accumulated, preserved and passed on from generation to generation;
4) they may be involved in commodity circulation, be bought and sold;
5) both intellectual property objects and material objects are involved in social relations, particularly economic;
6) they are subject to regulation.
However, despite a number of similarities intellectual property items have inherent specific features. First, it is an intangible form of existence. Results of intellectual activity
in the form of knowledge are phenomena not limited in space. In contrast to material things they can be in several or multiple locations simultaneously. Secondly, it is a nonconsumable nature of intellectual property items. They do not lose their value and use-value during its use and virtually are not subject to physical wear and tear. Third, it is an inextricable link of results of intellectual activities with the personality of their creator which means their lifetime ownership rights [4].
Those significant specific features of intellectual property items have led to specific nature of intellectual property itself. The economic essence of intellectual product is the effect of economies of scale. However, this property of knowledge can provide a competitive advantage only if competitors do not have open access to this knowledge. This fact makes knowledge extremely vulnerable as soon as it becomes known to a wide range of individuals. Therefore, to ensure sustainability of such an object, the results of intellectual activity must be protected. This problem is solved by an institution of intellectual property which introduces exclusive rights for intellectual property, thereby limiting access to knowledge and giving them a rarity factor
From the standpoint of implementation of property relations intellectual property is a dynamically developing institution that includes an institution of patent law, copyright and related rights, and an institution of trade secrets. Each of these institutions has its own particular functions, but all of them together are designed to solve one problem - legal protection of intellectual property
The essence of ownership of intellectual items as well as material objects is the monopoly on the use of property by the owner of the property, i.e. denying all others access to this item. Giving exclusive rights to intellectual property the institution of intellectual property ensures legal monopoly on knowledge.
Institution of intellectual property is a set of rights to the results of intellectual work which determines non-material intangible objects (knowledge) protection [3, p. 12]. It allows integrating intellectual activity and innovation in the overall economic system, adapting intellectual and information product to market realities and ensures a balance of interests between public and the creator of an intellectual product. At the same time the intellectual property system can isolate specific innovative relations from the general economic relationships. In particular, in parallel with the traditional cycle of innovation and investment (study of the project - investments - implementation - profits) intellectual property cycles are gaining momentum (research and development - obtaining protectable results - copyright - a practical application - sale of licenses, etc.).
This results in a relatively isolated intellectual product markets characterized by its own laws of formation and
♦-----------------------------------------------------------------
development. It follows from the above mentioned that in the innovation economy impact of the institution of intellectual property on the dynamics of innovation not only is multiplied but also acquires a qualitatively new aspects.
The importance of the institution of intellectual property in this respect is determined by:
- Fixing the system of scientific and technological developments;
- Allowing to create necessary integrated package of rights to associated objects;
- Giving a general description of technical level in different areas;
- Promoting inter-subject and inter-sectoral diffusion of improvements [2].
While examining the institution of intellectual property in the innovation economy the opposite effect of innovation on its development must be noted. One can say that there are innovations, aimed at protecting intellectual property. In particular, foreign economists note that encryption process used in digital technologies has led to the situation when copyright is facing a very important step: transition into the category of tangible property. The current reality provides examples of how intellectual property becomes tangible. For example, encryption schemes of music CDs may limit the region and manner of their use.
Ownership of copyrighted objects through the encryption process will mean that the owner of the copyrighted work will be able to give their consent for or restrict its use in advance. “No” would mean “no” in the same way as in the case of tangible property [7, p. 281 - 286]. In our opinion, the era of the phonograph and cinema projectors meant control of the equipment, the era of radio and video - control over competition.
However, it should be noted that this process affects only copyright and yet does not apply to patents and trademarks. Without diminishing the importance of the institution of intellectual property it should also be noted that it has both positive and negative effect on economic performance. Destructive threat could become a reality, mainly in the following cases:
- If intellectual property rights are used as a tool for inhibition of innovation processes, such as blocking patents;
- When intellectual property rights that belong to actors of innovation system and in particular to state acquire exaggerated character and are in clear conflict with the interests of other innovative players;
- When the cost of maintaining intellectual property protection to society exceeds the benefits from its operation.
In particular, the situation that exists in the United States as a result of excessive patenting is described as “patent jungle.” Such situation occurs when the same product, the same technology are protected by multiple patents. This is particularly noticeable in areas such as semiconductors, biotechnology, computer software, Internet [5, p. 863 - 896].
“Patent Jungle” is an obstacle to innovation. Economists and lawyers have expressed different ideas about how to deal with it: introduce cross-licensing, create patent pools. It is thought that there two most effective mechanisms for “thinning out the jungle”, i.e. decreasing the number of patents. The first way is to raise the cost of maintaining the patent. The second, more innovative, way is to establish commercial patent rights system which means creating a secondary market where patent protection can be bought and sold. Owners of low-value patents will have to
sell them to higher level inventors making the patent system more efficient. Potential patent holders will be able to determine for how many years they will get legal protection depending on the commercial value of their inventions. Applications will continue to be filed with the Patent Office, but recognition that the invention is patentable will no longer mean automatic granting of protection for twenty years. The cost of patent protection will be determined not by the decision of public authority but by supply and demand.
Obviously the development of innovative economy is accompanied by a sharp increase in the number of claims and litigation relating to intellectual property rights infringement. In addition, technological progress makes it practically impossible for courts of general jurisdiction to consider the majority of such cases which compels the state to create specialized agencies, in particular, patent courts. If during scientific and innovative development rights and interests in the sphere of intellectual property are protected, as a rule, separately, in the innovation economy intellectual property relations are closely, often inseparably intertwined with other forms of property, transactions, obligations, etc. Therefore, for effective protection of intellectual property rights it is necessary, on the one hand, to synthesize them with other property and non-property rights, such as to the results of scientific and technological activities, and, on the other hand, to analytically isolate from aggregated parameters, particularly in privatization, calculation of taxes and etc. Protection of intellectual property becomes more difficult due to the spread of modern information and communication technologies. A vey urgent challenge is protection of intellectual property rights in the Internet.
Innovative values of society are important for development of innovation economy. Without respect for intellectual property rights, including one's own, innovative values of an individual, economic agent, social group, as well as national values can not be considered fully formed. Conversely, if innovative values and traditions have not become a real socio-economic regulator functioning of the institution of intellectual property is largely a formality.
The intellectual property system requires a supportive intellectual infrastructure. Deriving benefit from it depends on the participants' understanding of the practical aspects of intellectual property as well as understanding the mechanisms of functioning of this system and sharing this understanding with market participants. In order to be able to exploit the potential of intellectual property to the full it is necessary to develop the infrastructure conducive to the use and commercialization of intellectual infrastructure.
Historically patent-information systems were developing parallel to the institution of intellectual property as the single greatest component of infrastructure. During rapid intensification of innovative processes information array that defines the creation and circulation of intellectual property is increase faster and faster. This leads to qualitative changes in the patent information activity which is aimed not just at making intellectual property information available to consumers but also at aggregating information array making it possible to form a general understanding of achievements in the field of science and technology No less significant is the element of the intellectual property infrastructure related to legal services to participants of turnover of intellectual products. Note that the intellectual property infrastructure includes both specialized and general innovation channels (for example, a common system
of scientific and technical information). It is marked by the creation of specialized patent courts, patent-licensing structures activation, formation of specialized professional groups and organizations of patent agents, etc.
The intellectual property infrastructure should maintain the functioning of the intellectual property system with the appropriate new technologies and ability to transfer technology from entrepreneurial universities to industrial enterprises. An important part of this process is the rise of public awareness of the practical aspects of intellectual property and introduction of intellectual property into university programs. According to some authors, the basic course on intellectual property should be taught in every university. Specialized courses on intellectual property should be part of curricula at the faculties of law, economics, design, philosophy, biology, etc. [6, p. 223 - 238]. Particular attention should also be given to strengthening ties between universities and industry. Traditional universities could be transformed into business universities.
In the innovation economy the institution of intellectual property becomes the most important tool in a national science and innovation policy, state leverage on the direction, speed and efficiency of innovation processes. The institution of intellectual property is used directly in the arsenal of both direct and indirect methods of state regulation of science and innovation sector.
Earlier state regulation of intellectual property was reduced mainly to ensuring that the respective rights of individuals and individual economic agents are protected, during the transition to innovation-based economy development issues of the intellectual property institution as part of the national wealth, significant factor in the growth of global competitiveness acquire an increasingly prominent place in public policy. The sphere of state interests covers not simply the processes of intellectual property items development and individual transactions with them, but above all the involvement of intellectual property into the economy, its efficient management in order to accelerate the innovation process. Creation and use of new intellectual property items are transformed from the sphere of legal regulation into an issue of national economic strategy a significant parameter of macroeconomic dynamics [1, p. 7 - 15].
However, a reverse trend can be seen, state measures to promote scientific and innovative development, one way or another, intensify the generation and circulation of intellectual property items. Thus, realization of publicly funded R & D projects in many cases leads to creation of new intellectual property items. By promoting the spread of advanced technologies government agencies at the same time facilitate growth in the transfer of intellectual property
The main functions traditionally fulfilled by state in the sphere of intellectual property are filled with new content. Modification of state impact results from an intensification of creation and circulation of intellectual property, and from integration of the intellectual property institution into innovative relations of business entities. At the heart of national development mechanisms of intellectual property institution lies development and updating the relevant areas of legislation. Activation of innovative processes requires changes in the provided almost exclusively by state regulatory framework concerning relations of the institution of intellectual property.
The state functions are no longer confined to the publication of patents and other information relating to intellec-
tual property. The state should “integrate” patent data in the general circulation of scientific and technical information, ensure prompt delivery of patent information to potential users, its efficient initial treatment, and circulation in general and specialized electronic communication networks. A number of services provided by government agencies to consumers of patent information free of charge, at preferential price or commercial price, in particular carrying out patent research has increased dramatically. An important part of public policies is spreading a culture of rational management of intellectual potential.
The innovation-based economy has new requirements for staffing of the institution of intellectual property. First of all, it means awareness of the general principles of the innovation process, understanding the concept of intellectual property transactions as a component of an integrated mechanism for commercializing scientific and technological achievements and advanced technologies. The innovation economy determines new, previously only sporadic state functions related to intellectual property. An example is state support for the practical application of intellectual property items for commercial purposes.
The accumulation of intellectual property items in the hands of the state is a rational instrument of resource support for the national innovation system. First, in the face of considerable uncertainty about prospects for commercialization and due to specific nature of public sector costs of development and protection of intellectual property in many cases can be covered only by state agencies. Secondly, a time lag between the creation of intellectual property items and their practical application determines the need to create a whole system of databases of intellectual property the biggest of which should be maintained by state. Third, state investment in innovation processes through the transfer of intellectual property is more focused and therefore effective than monetary investment which requires monitoring of the use of the funds.
Possibility of increasing the state budget through selling intellectual property rights can not be ignored as well. This financial source may, of course, be used to support various parts of the national innovation system, in particular those parts that can not operate on the principles of self-sufficiency
Thus, in a modern innovative economy the significance of the intellectual property institution for its development not only increases substantially but also acquires qualitatively new features. This is reflected in the emergence of new intellectual property items and new threats related to the spread of modern information and communication technologies, integration of the intellectual property institution in an innovative relations of business entities and as a consequence, emergence of new state functions in the sphere of intellectual property.
1. Бекетов Н.В. Государственная инновационная политика в области охраны интеллектуальной собственности: проблемы формирования и развития // Актуальные проблемы управления: мат. 8-й Междунар. науч.-практ. конф. (г. Москва, 12 - 13 ноября 2003 г.). М., 2003.
2. Бекетов Н.В. Проблемы формирования национальной инновационной системы и развитие института интеллектуальной собственности. иР1_: http://www.nanonewsnet.ru.
3. Интеллектуальная собственность - XXI век. Правовая защита инноваций: мат. конф.М., 2010.
4. Совцова Ю.А. Экономические аспекты интеллектуальной собственности // Особенности функционирования рыночной экономики России / под ред. О. В. Субботиной. Саратов, 2003.
д. Ayres I., Parchomovsky G. Tradeble patent rights // Stanford law rev. 2007. №3.
6. Kelli A., Pisuke H. Intellectual property in an innovation-based economy // Review of central and east European law. Leiden, 2008. Vol. 33.
7. Randal C. Picker. From Edison to broadcast flag: Mechanisms of consent and refusal and the propertization of copyright / / The university of Chicago law review. 2003. Vol. 70. №1.
удк 330.34 Ye.G. Reshetnikova
INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS OF ENSURING FOOD SAFETY
The author analyzes some trends in the food consumption sphere, specific features of income differentiation and food poverty dynamics. The paper presents possible directions of social policy modernization at the present stage.
Key words: food consumption, food poverty, income differentiation.
Е.Г. Решетникова
ИНСТИТУЦИОНАЛЬНЫЕ АСПЕКТЫ ОБЕСПЕЧЕНИЯ ПРОДОВОЛЬСТВЕННОЙ БЕЗОПАСНОСТИ
В статье анализируются тенденции в сфере потребления продовольствия, особенности дифференциации доходов и динамика продовольственной бедности. Рассматриваются направления модернизации социальной политики на современном этапе.
Ключевые слова: потребление продовольствия, продовольственная бедность, дифференциация
доходов.
New aspects in the approaches to the problem of improving affordability of food and reducing food poverty include theoretical and methodological development of the concept of major macro corporations regulation in the food market in the context of incomplete institutional reforms in the agro food sector, regulation should be based on the changes in state revenue and tax policy and designed to maintain a dynamic, economic and social balance of the food market.
One of the main directions of state policy to ensure food safety is the implementation of measures aimed at reducing poverty, providing priority support to the most needy. There should be continuous food help for low-income families in order to prevent chronic malnutrition [2, p. 15].
The current economic structure does not facilitate bridging the income gap between the rich and the poor, so it is necessary to restore a principle of social justice in the ratio of incomes of the population employed in various sectors of economy and in the budget expenditures on the social sector and other purposes, increasing the share of wages in GDP , increasing the minimum wage bringing it in line with the regional cost of living.
Currently the law “On State Social Assistance” (1999), and the law “On the state policy with regard to average annual family income and income of a citizen living alone for the recognition of the low-income status and providing them with state social assistance” (2003) are in effect in the Russian Federation. According to latter (Article 7) citizen income is calculated before tax and fees which lowers the number of low-income population. We believe that, based on the experience of developed countries, those with incomes below the subsistence level should be exempt from paying taxes.
The risks and threats to food safety include low level of effective demand for food and social risks posed by the gap in living standards between rural and urban areas.
The monitoring of parameters of consumption and income carried out at the Institute of Agrarian Problems, RAS, leads to the following conclusions. Food consumption at the modern stage is characterized by the following trends:
- Consumption level of the most affluent part of the population has reached or exceeds the level of rational standards of consumption, consumption of a number of basic foods by the least wealthy of the population falls short of the minimum physiological norm, i.e. low-income groups suffer from food poverty;
- As food consumption per capita grows, parameters of differentiation of food consumption in social and family (income groups) and regional (urban and rural) sections decline;
- With rising income of the low income families there is a growing demand for food and that during insufficient supply leads to the inflationary spiral. In this situation there is a necessity for dynamic development of the national agricultural sector with state support for major integrated companies, and enterprises of small and medium-sized businesses. This is also important for the process of import substitution.
Socio-economic differentiation is an essential element of a market economy. However, excessive inequality causes poverty, leads to a situation where for a certain segment of the population consumption of basic food products in accordance with the minimum standards that ensure the preservation of human health and the maintenance of normal healthy life becomes unaffordable.
Increasing income differentiation can take many forms. In Russia, it is due to more rapid income growth of most affluent part of the population. Half of the Russian citizens spend on food from 40 to 50% of all consumer spending, only 10% of the most wealthy allocate 15,7% of their income for buying food. In developed countries this figure is 10 -15% on average for all social groups. Obviously, due to lim-
