CC BY
336 Ä and Practice A^ÍCU""^
\J\J Journal Bulletin of Stavropol Hegton
UDK 330.3
Levushkina S. V., Miroshnichenko R. W.
KEY FACTORS OF REGIONAL INNOVATION CLUSTERS AND THEIR INTERACTION
Abstract: The article outlines and describes the basic functions of the state in relation to the national system of innovation. Selected forms of state influence on innovative entrepreneurship. The criteria effectively-STI regional innovation system. Considered multi-stakeholder composition of the parties of an innovation cluster. The features of interaction of participants of innovative clusters created by naturally-evolutionary, at different stages of life cycle of
hardware themselves clusters and life cycle of the base and system innovation.
Key words: national innovation system, innovation and entrepreneurship, innovation cluster, a public-private partnership, the composition of the cluster participants, the business sector, academic and University sectors of science, small and medium business.
Levushkina S. V. -
Candidate of legal Sciences, associate Professor, Professor of
chair «Management» of the
Stavropol state agrarian University
Stavropol, Russia
Tel.: +79187758857
E-mail: Kirachek@mail.ru
Miroshnichenko R. W. -
Ph. D., Associate Professor, Department of State and Municipal Management
North-Caucausus Federal University Stavropol, Russia Tel.: +79289712614 E-mail: ruzannao@rambler.ru
The national innovation policy of any state should be aimed primarily at legal regulation of innovative activity; development of effective measures; increasing of innovative activity of participants of market relations; development of innovation infrastructure; using economic and financial state's instruments of innovation support; formation of a modern competitive innovation centres of the Federal, regional, sectoral value [3, p. 21].
Therefore, it used to allocate the following general functions of the state in relation to economic system: regulating, administrative, organizational, distribution, control, protective, analytical, motivational, informational, regulatory, normative -legal, institutional [9, p. 93]. These functions could be made in relation to the innovation sector of the economy. Modern mechanism of the formation of favorable environment for innovation and business should be based on the totality of state' functions in their specific modifications.
State regulation and support of innovative business are necessary due to the existence of "failures" in the market of innovations and «know-how». These "failures" are related to the fact that innovations have the property of public benefit, and innovation carry a high degree of risk. All external stimulus to the development of innovative processes in the field of entrepreneurship are contributing actively to reorient production activity of economic entities, taking into consideration the innovative nature of last [1, p. 219]. The process of state stimulation of entrepreneurship to innovation activity is impact on business structure, which takes into account their real needs, aspirations, interests, objectives and behavioral motivation.
These forms of state influence on innovative entrepreneurship as support, regulation and stimula-
tiontion are complementary and as a whole form the state mechanism of activation to innovative activities of the enterprise to be indispensable sector of the economy.
Obviously, that national innovation system includes a strong regional component, caused by the following objective factors:
- the presence of the distal regions (the border, the Siberian regions, etc.). World practice shows that than more distance of the region from the center, than fewer opportunities to lobby it's interests, lower opportunities for the business sector to achieve commercial success through political lobbying. Because of this mostly these type of regions are strong and know its' advantages, given the opportunities provided by the regional market system, but not the configuration of political forces;
- the presence of the depressed regions, the business sector which are more ready for innovation. In these regions there are an urgent need to overcome the crisis due to the reaver-age sales of modern technological solutions, reduce costs (while maintaining the structure of industrial production) or as alternative creating good new products and businesses in their production (in parallel to the withering away of production activities, which launched the enterprise in crisis, or, at least, not allowed to smooth the negative effects). On the other hand, in those regions where the structure of industrial production is able to provide business entities a stable income and to create conditions for the socio-economical distribution and political stability, the propensity for innovation will be significantly lower;
№ 4(24)/2 Supplement, 2016
- the existence of significant differences between regions in terms of a prevailing industrial specialization.
Consequently, the efficiency of the regional innovation system should be determined [6]:
- capability to generate new knowledge and technologies, including ability to implement scientific-educational and innovative potential;
- developed institutions and channels of transfer and commercialization of over-time technologies that integrate activities of all participants in the innovation process;
- high innovation activity of the business sector;
- systematic and efficient support for innovation and entrepreneurship activities by federal and regional authorities;
- the presence of clear strategic orientation of regional innovative development, which harmonized in the framework of strategy for so-cio-economical development of the region.
Practice shows that innovation mechanism of development of management system is used effectively in some Russian regions, but not all regions of the our country recently years,. It should be noted that the majority of Russian regions cpould be characterized by minor processes of innovative activity of their socio-economical development at the moment. According to the Institute for statistical studies and Economics of knowledge HSE in 2013, the most innovation-active region was Moscow. Similar conclusion has been obtained by the group of authors -composers of a rating of innovative development of subjects of the Russian Federation due to results of calculating the «index of innovative development of subjects of the Russian Federation (RRII)» during the reporting period. The four leaders divided the capital with the of Tatarstan republic, Kaluga region and St. Petersburg. Among the progressive developing of innovative regions: the Chuvash Republic (RRII - 0,4707), region f Sverdlovsk (0,4695), region of Nizhny Novgorod (0,4685), region of Novosibirsk (0,4684), region of Tomsk (0,4623)[7, 17] etc. These four leaders was Moscow, Saint-Petersburg, Tatarstan, region of Nizhny Novgorod in 2015[8]. Overall, the results of the above studies have shown that the value RRII as leadership in the ranking of the region (city of Moscow, RRII = 0,5908) exceeds the value of the marginal rating (Ingushetia, RRII = 0,1694) 3.48 times, and there by testify to the uneven innovative development of Russian regions.
In modern conditions the interaction of private and state sectors is essential for effective resource allocation, including the innovation sector. From the position of the enterprise, the public authorities are called upon to form the most favorable conditions for development of entrepreneurial sector. The state's position, the latter is in the process of its activities implementation of the goals, objectives and interests of the population, increasing welfare, employment, economic, environmental, security, etc. In the General case of public-private partnership (PPP) should be viewed as a partnership in which the pub-
lic authorities and the private sector jointly implement projects, on mutual agreement on the distribution of designated tasks and possible risks [10]. The term PPP describes a relationship in which resources of public and enterprise sectors are used owls locally to achieve mutually beneficial goals. As one of the forms of PPP decided to consider the creation of an innovative infrastructure (clusters, incubators, technology transfer offices, etc.).
The multi-stakeholder composition of the participants of the innovative cluster can be classified according to the structure of the model "triple helix", highlighting the part of cluster participants in the following key categories:
- «state» (public authorities and local self government office);
- «business» (commercial organizations of various forms of ownership regardless of the ongoing economic activity);
- «academic sector of science» (the organizations which carry out educational and research activities, as well as entitled to conduct business activity in the framework of the goals and objectives defined by the Charter).
The above group of participants of innovative clusters enter into formal and informal relations involving Ki-Bryden institutional organizations, as well as two - or three hundred-Ronni management process. This kind of relationship stands for-my to reduce transaction costs of participants of the innovative cluster, which in his framework is significantly below the market forms of institutional organization [12].
The study of the innovation cluster as a dynamical system leads to conclusion that the priority of relations with different composition of constituent entities of the cluster is determined by the life cycle base and C systematic of innovation speakers technology-integrated education [4, p. 50]. So, at the stage of generation of innovations when the priority should relations «the state and academic sector of science», at the stage of innovation - the relations of «academic and WU-Zowski science sector - business sector», at the stage of commercial of the organization of innovation - the relations «business - state».
In addition, innovation cluster goes through several stages of the life cycle. Swedish scientists T. Anderson (Andersson) and S. Swag (Schwaag) identifie the following stages of the life cycle: «prak-la-ster»(sinter), emerging, developing and cluster which is availableto transform [13].
Participants of innovative clusters also create education-governmental, evolutionary, programmes at different stages of the clusters' life cycle and the base and system innovation (figures 1-4).
The participants of the sinter (figure 1) operate, as a rule, provided and implementing their industrial and commercial purposes within home's region. The state participates in the activities of Universities, Academies, scientific organizations, enterprises of small and medium businesses, large enterprises by regulating and supporting their activities through specific mechanisms. In the next phase of devel-
Quarterly
Research and Practice __ . „
Bulletin of Stavropol Region
Journal -*-
opment, agents of market relations begin to form partnerships with each other to enhance the commercial effect of its activities. State participation in the emerging clusters is expanding. The bodies of Federal and regional authorities also engage with market participants in the partnerships, the related General innovation objective.
At the stage of cluster development (figure 2) to attract new participants of its home region, is able to increase its profitability and expand in the future the
boundaries of influence. The government actively cooperates with the business Universities, Academies to create demand innovation and know-how, and the business sector with the academic and University sector of science at the stage of their implementation.
A Mature cluster (figure 3) is outside its region which is attracting new participants and creating the framework of the cluster of new enterprises and organizations. The government actively cooperates with all members of the cluster, and at the same
Figure 1 - Interaction of participants of the agglomerate and the emerging innovation cluster created naturally-the evolutionary different stages of the life cycle of the base and system innovation
Source: author's
Developing cluster
Figure 2 - Interaction of participants developing innovative valve-stera created naturally-the evolutionary different stages of the life cycle of the base and system innovation
№ 4(24)/2 Supplement, 2016
time with different priority relations depending on the projects to greater extent could be the source of in-
stage of the life cycle of an innovative product
The transforming cluster (figure 4) is characterized by large numbers of participants and the relationships between them, in pursuit of shared goals. The stategives priority to the relationships and
creasing the innovative potential of the region-based and the country in General.
Composition in addition to the participantsl key of the innovation cluster is accepted to allocate following groups[5]:
Mature cluster
The priority of relationship at tile commeeialization of innovations level
Figure 3 - Interaction of participants of a Mature innovation cluster, co-created naturally-the evolutionary different stages of the life cycle BA-crisis and systemic innovation
Source: author's
The territory out of the region of basement
The priority of relationship at the creation innovations level
The priority of relationships at the introduction of innovations level
The priority of relationship at the commecialization of innovations level
Concentration of efforts around the process of making new technologies and innovative products
Figure 4 - Interaction of the participants in transforming innovation cluster created naturally-the evolutionary different stages of the life cycle of the base and system innovation
40 TsTsCh and Practice
Journal XK, Bnllctln of Stavrapal Reglan
- complementary facilities for operating facilities «core» (industrial parks, technoparks, business-incubators, etc.);
- service facilities, indirectly providing function operation objects «kernel» (organization infrastructure, financial, technological, industrial, transport, construction, telecommunication, energy, environmental, social, etc.);
- additional objects are implicitly providing function operations of«kernel» (financial, investment, service-con-sultation, legal, insurance, leasing, factoring, venture, marketing, social, charity, etc.).
To implement the innovative potential of the innovative strength of the cluster's relationship with his actors fully must to reflect the structurer as ap-
REFERENCES:
1. Andersson T., Schwaag S. The Cluster Policies Whitebook // IKED. Malmo, 2004.
2. Aleksandrova A. I. the Role of the business environment in the innovative development // problems of modern Economics. 2013. № 3 (47).
3. Burkov A. V., Murzina E. A. Integrated accounting system for small businesses as a way of combining the accounting and tax account of incomes and expenditures Dov // Innovative development of the economy. 2012. № 8. P. 104-116.
4. Elfimova Y. M. Main criteria of evaluation of innovative projects at the enterprise // Simulation of production processes and the development of information systems : collection of scientific works. Tr. according to the materials of the III international scientific conference. (Moscow, March 29-30, 2012) / SSAU. Stavropol, 2012. P. 178-181.
5. Elfimova Y. M. Main directions of development of innovative policy of the enterprises // Actual problems of Economics, sociology and law. 2011. № 1. P. 47-49.
6. Gorshkov V. A. Innovation economy: a regional model / V. A. Gorshkov. Vestn. Chelyab. state University. 2004. S. 8. № 1.
7. Grudeva E. National peculiarities in perception of the seasons in the Russian and English languages (on phycholinguistic experiment data) // Paradigmata poznani. 2017. № 1. C. 62-65.
8. Napolskih L. The institutionalization of innovation clusters // New University: «Economics and law». 2014. № 2 (36).
9. Crisis management imperatives of economic development : monograph / U. S. Avramenko, A. T. Aydinova, K. A. Andiyeva, N. V. Alekse-eva, K. V.Bagmet,T.V.Vergun, O.A.Voropanov, P. V. Gudarenko, R. F. Gudarenko, E. A. Egorkin, S. V. Zenchenko, V. F. Ivannikov, K. M. Ilchenko, I. N. Kiseleva,
propriate composition of institutions that will focuse on benefits to perform such functions as institutional competition and innovation. The set of formal and informal institutions entry constitute the institutional environment, the effectiveness of which is determined by the provision of high density and intensity of transactions with the participation of innovation-oriented economic entities, reduction of costs for the protection of intellectual property rights, in the relevant scientific and technical information, costs, the conclusions of contracts, negotiation with the participation of innovation-oriented-bathrooms of market agents, the costs of market monitoring of process and product innovation[2, 11]. The effectiveness of the institutional environment increases in the case if the actions of formal and informal institutions.
S. V. Levushkina, R. V. Miroshnichenko, O. A. Aharanov, A. V. Plyasunova, And E. O. Prilepsky, A. V. Rudneva. Stavropol : SEQUOIA, 2016. 323 p.
10. National standard «Territorial clusters» (Requirements) / Association of clusters and technology parks.[Electronic resource]. URL: http://nptechnopark.ru/upload/StandClust. pdf
11. The fundamentals of innovation. Lecture notes. 2007. [Electronic resource]. URL: http://files.lib.sfu-kras.ru/ebibl/umkd/43/u_ lectures.pdf
12. The rating of innovative development of subjects of the Russian Federation. Issue 3 / L. Gokhberg, M. NAT. University «Higher school of Economics». M. : higher school of Economics, 2015.
13. Rating of innovative regions. For the purposes of monitoring and management: version 2015-1.0 / the Association of innovative regions of Russia. [Electronic resource]. URL: http://i-regions.org/files/file_47.pdf
14. Folomeev A. N. Innovative investing / A. N. Folomeev, V. G. Reva-call. SPb.: Science, 2001.
15. Saringer L. New model of investment partnership between the state and the private sector // REZH. 2004. № 9-10. P. 41-52.
16. Allieva T. V. codification of state-tion of regulatory control as an effective function of state management // New University. Series: law and Economics. 2013. № 8 (30). P. 41-45.
17. Allieva T. V. Problems and development strategies of state control as one of the most effective functional controls // technology Innovation management and law. 2012. № 1-2. P. 50-59.
18. Andersson T., Schwaag S. Cluster policy the cluster policies whitebook // IKED. Malmo, 2004.
