CC BY
18
Yulia G. LAVRIKOVA
Dr. Sc. (Econ.), Director Designate
Institute of Economics (Ural branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences)
29 Moskovskaya St., Yekaterinburg, Russia, 620014 Phone:(343) 371-45-36 e-mail: [email protected]
Yelena L. ANDREEVA
Dr. Sc. (Econ.), Prof., Deputy Director Designate
Institute of Economics (Ural branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences)
29 Moskovskaya St., Yekaterinburg, Russia, 620014 Phone:(343)371-38-15 e-mail: [email protected]
Anatoly G. TARASOV
Dr. Sc. (Econ.), Prof., Lead Researcher
Institute of Economics (Ural branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences)
29 Moskovskaya St., Yekaterinburg, Russia, 620014 Phone:(343)371-38-15 e-mail: [email protected]
Managing the Development of Advanced Manufacturing Technologies Under Transformation of the World Industrial Landscape1
The paper justifies the specifics of the turning point in the world technological development and indicates the arising opportunity for Russia to change its positioning in the global economy. It demonstrates the role of the advanced manufacturing technologies as an important factor behind new industrialization and maintaining global competitiveness of an economy. The paper describes peculiarities of the modern world technological development and holds a comparative analysis of the level of manufacturing competitiveness, research potential and support provided to industrial and technological development in a number of countries. The authors detect main trends in the transformation of the world technological landscape, including in the context of management of the manufacturing technologies development by the leading technologically advanced countries.
JEL classification: F00, L60
Keywords: manufacturing technologies development; new industrialization; global manufacturing competitiveness; landscape of world technological development; research potential of economies; support for industrial-technological development.
o <
T3
c
<
1 This work was prepared within the fundamental research project of the Ural branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences no. 15-14-7-2 "Forecast assessment of the priority directions for modernization of the Ural old industrial region for expanding import substitution".
Introduction
The process of the new industrialization is one of the most pronounced and actively discussed trends in the world economy. The developed countries are characterized by the so-called policy of reshoring, which is being currently implemented by the USA [4; 11; 12]. However, the slogan "Buy American", which reflects the search for public support of import substitution [3], was coined in the 1980s to protect the American market from Japanese companies.
In Europe, the commencement of the industry revival after a long-propagated era of post-industrialization was marked by the communiqué "For the European Industrial Renaissance" published by the European Commission in January 2014, which envisaged an increase in the industry's share in GDP of the EU countries from 16 to 20% by 2020. There are already some achievements. Half of the top 10 nations with the most industrial robots per 10,000 employees belong to the European Union. Of the 22 countries with an above-average robot density, 14 are located in the EU1. The third place in the world is taken by Germany, where the national industry preserved better than in other European economies: the share of manufacturing in the structure of GDP is 22.4%, while the output of industrial products has increased by 23.5% over the past fifteen years (for instance, in Italy it has decreased by 11.1%) [6]. At present, in Europe, the general mechanisms of development include stimulation of small innovative businesses and creation of its own high-tech production [4].
As for developing countries, the experience of China deserves particular attention, where it was possible to combine the national trends of the East (in mental sphere) and the best achievements of the West (in innovative sphere). According to the national program "Made in China 2025" PRC seeks to become the leading technologically advanced nation in the field of industry.
Extensive experience of carrying out accelerated industrialization during the Soviet period can be described as a "Russian model of industrialization". Nowadays, in relation to the Russian economy the term "new industrialization" is applied the most often [2; 5; 10].
Taking into account the increased attention to new industrial development in national economies, which involves the use of new technologies, it seems quite relevant to identify the main trends in managing the development of advanced manufacturing technologies in the context of the changing world industrial landscape.
Methodological approaches to identification of peculiarities of the world industrial and technological development
According to S. A. Tolkachev, in modern conditions "reducing costs per unit of output due to enhanced division of labour and increased economies of scale cease to become the determining factor in geoeconomy. Global value chains are subject to de-globalization, regionalization and localization" [11]. In this regard special attention is drawn to new industrialization, which, as treated by Ye. G. Animitsa, Ya. P. Silin, N. V. Novikova, is a set of long-term technical and technological processes, enabling quantitative and qualitative modernization of industry, physical infrastructure, R&D, preparation of specialists [10. P. 16]. Economists highlight the importance of both vertical and inter-industry integration. For instance, S. S. Gubanov argues that the law of vertical integration is a criterion behind progressiveness of a socioeconomic system of any country in the world. Modern economic system is as much progressive, as it is vertically integrated and able to maintain inter-industry interactions. What is not vertically integrated and not organized in the form of inter-industry value chains is certainly imperfect [5. P. 15].
While examining the cycles of world economic development V. Klinov states that "basic innovations that opened the way for the development of new sectors of production occurred
1 World Robotics Report 2016. International Federation of Robotics Fund. Available at: https://ifr. org/ifr-press-releases/news/world-robotics-report-2016.
the most intensively in the periods of the least favourable economic situation" [8]. This way, in the USSR during the post-war period large-scale high-tech projects were implemented. At the same time, the government provided conditions for active formation and interaction of auxiliary industries, research and educational institutions around new industrial productions, what raised the level of general and technical culture, improved territorial development, and sustainability of the entire socioeconomic system [2].
In the conditions of the global economic and financial crisis, declining world commodity prices, as well as strained global economic relations, we can also speak of a period of unfavorable economic situation, when highly demanded innovations create additional opportunities for scientific and technological development of a country [9. P. 26; 7. P. 21].
Modern technological development features three important qualitative transitions:
• from manufacturing as "production using human physical efforts" to "brainfacturing" as intellectual production, or "production using human intellect";
• from B2B, B2C to M2M and IoT concept (the Internet of Things);
• from the concepts "high-tech" and "low-tech" in the 20th century to the concept of advanced industries in the 21st century.
The Brookings Institution establishes the following criteria to refer to an industry as an advanced:
• an industry's R&D expenditure per worker must fall in the 80th percentile of industries or higher, exceeding 450 US dollars per worker;
• the share of workers in an industry whose occupations require a high degree of STEM knowledge (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) must also be above the national average, or 21% of all workers [13. P. 2].
Together the two thresholds identify 50 industries in the USA, of which 38 are manufacturing, and the rest represent sector of services closely related to the industry. The advanced industries sector employs 80% of the nation's engineers; performs 90% of private-sector R&D; generates approximately 85% of all US patents; and accounts for 60% of the US exports. One new job in the sector creates up to 16 additional jobs in other sectors [13. P. 3].
Therefore, the indicated peculiarities of the world technological development are of a fundamentally new, comprehensive and long-term nature, which allows the countries directing special attention to this issue so as to secure their leading positions in the world economy.
Comparative analysis of advanced manufacturing technologies development by country
The development of advanced manufacturing technologies determines the global manufacturing competitiveness. The three leading countries in the 2016 Global Manufacturing Competitiveness Index (GMCI) are China, the USA, and Germany (table 1). In the forecast for 2020, the leaders will remain the same, though the USA will push China from the first to the second place. The composition of the five leaders in 2020 will not change much as well, yet India will edge out South Korea and move from the 11th position to the fifth. It is noteworthy that the ranks of the European countries are going to deteriorate except for the solid position of Germany and improved rank of the Czech Republic (by three points). However, the positions of some developing countries are likely to become better, particularly, the ranks of Malaysia (13th place) and Indonesia (15th place) will grow by four points. Of the 15 leading countries in 2020, ten are located in Asia Pacific, three are from North America (the USA, Canada, Mexico) and only two originate from Europe (Germany and the United Kingdom, though the rank of the latter will deteriorate by two positions). At this, there is a direct correlation between a country's rank and its high-tech export. The countries, where high-tech exports account for more than a half of the total exports, are believed to improve their positions: Germany (53%, +5), the USA (58%, +3), Japan (55%, +2), the United Kingdom (58%, +9). The ranking of China and India, having the share of high-tech exports of 42% and 43% respectively, is expected to fall by one and three positions.
Table 1
Global Manufacturing Competitiveness Index rankings by country, 2016 and 2020 (projected)
2016 2020 (projected)
Rank Country Index score Rank 2016 vs. 2020 Country Index score
1 China 100.0 1 + 1 United States 100.0
2 United States 99.5 2 -1 China 93.5
3 Germany 93.9 3 - Germany 90.8
4 Japan 80.4 4 - Japan 78.0
5 South Korea 76.7 5 +6 India 77.5
6 United Kingdom 75.8 6 -1 South Korea 77.0
7 Taiwan 72.9 7 + 1 Mexico 75.9
8 Mexico 69.5 8 -2 United Kingdom 73.8
9 Canada 68.7 9 -2 Taiwan 72.1
10 Singapore 68.4 10 -1 Canada 68.1
11 India 67.2 11 -1 Singapore 67.6
12 Switzerland 63.6 12 +6 Vietnam 65.5
13 Sweden 62.1 13 +4 Malaysia 62.1
14 Thailand 60.4 14 - Thailand 62.0
15 Poland 59.1 15 +4 Indonesia 61.9
16 Turkey 59.0 16 -1 Poland 61.9
17 Malaysia 59.0 17 -1 Turkey 60.8
18 Vietnam 56.5 18 -5 Sweden 59.7
19 Indonesia 55.8 19 -7 Switzerland 59.1
20 Netherlands 55.7 20 +3 Czech Republic 57.4
Source: 2016 Global Manufacturing Competitiveness Index Report Highlights. Deloitte. Available at: https://www2.deloitte.com/global/en/pages/manufacturing/articles/global-manufacturing-competi-tiveness-index.html.
As for Russia, its position in the ranking worsened; after holding the 20th place in 2010, the country ranked just the 32th in 2016. It is a common trend for all BRIC countries: India fell from the second to the 11th place, Brazil changed its position from the fifth to the 29th (Fig. 1).
China India Brazil Russia
2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 Fig. 1. BRIC ranks in Global Manufacturing Competitiveness Index rankings, 2010-20201
1 2016 Global Manufacturing Competitiveness Index Report Highlights. Deloitte. Available at: https://www2.deloitte.com/global/en/pages/manufacturing/articles/global-manufacturing-competitive-ness-index.html.
However, we can see the rise of MITI-V (the "Mighty 5"): Malaysia (+4), India (+6), Thailand (the same 14th position), Indonesia (+4), Vietnam (+6) (table 2), which will be among the 15 leaders by 2020 (table 1).
Table 2
MITI-V ranks in Global Manufacturing Competitiveness Index rankings
Country Malaysia India Thailand Indonesia Vietnam
2016 17 11 14 19 18
2020 13 5 14 15 12
Source: 2016 Global Manufacturing Competitiveness Index Report Highlights. Deloitte. Available at: https://www2.deloitte.com/global/en/pages/manufacturing/articles/global-manufacturing-competi-tiveness-index.html.
In terms of the dynamics of technological development in 2000-2015, the combination of the two most important indicators of efficiency of national technological development, namely R&D expenditure as a percentage of GDP and number of researchers per million people allows identifying the following groups of the economies (Fig. 2).
%
USA
USA*
Japan* * Japan
South Korea*
South Korea
Germany
China*»
France
United Kingdom
Germany* France*
United Kingdom*
India*
• China
Russia* *
Russia
India
4,51 4,03,53,02,52,01,51,00,50,0-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-,
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500
Researchers per million people
Notes: no (*) indicates 2000; (*) indicates 2014 or 2015. The number of researchers is for 2014 [except for the USA (2012) and India (2010)], and R&D expenditure (% of GDP) is for 2015 [except for India (2011)]
Fig. 2. Changes in R&D expenditure and number of researchers in top countries by spending, 2014 and 20001
• South Korea and Taiwan are the economies that grew the most rapidly: in 2000-2013 their spending went up from less than 2% of GDP to well over 3%, whereas the number of researchers per million people rocketed from 2, 500 to 6, 000 people.
• Japan, Germany, France, the USA and the United Kingdom are the developed countries that demonstrated moderate growth. Their comparatively small increases indicate that the level of development of financial and human research potential is already high, therefore it is not easy to augment it substantially. Moreover, the United Kingdom experienced a decrease in relative spending on research. Generally, having strong position today does not guarantee holding them in the future.
• China, India, Russia are large developing countries that showed growth in at least one of the considered indicators.
1 Source: UNCTAD (http://data.uis.unesco.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=SCN_DS&popupcustomi se=true&lang=en#), OECD (https://data.oecd.org/rd/gross-domestic-spending-on-r-d.htm) and World Bank statistics (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GB.XPD.RSDV.GD.ZS).
Comparative analysis of national policies for industrial-technological development
Speaking about the global experience of supporting industrial-technological development, we cannot but mention the leadership of the USA, particularly expressed in the fact that out of 100 leading companies judging by market capitalization 54 are of American origin. Narrowing the focus of attention (within these top 100 companies) to companies of high-tech and industrial sector (46 companies out of 100) does not change the status of the American economy as the absolute leader (24 companies out of this number). In addition, the USA are the leader in companies' spending on R&D (41 companies out of 100 top), followed by Japan (25 companies). To compare, China occupies only the 12th place (2 companies). The USA also ranks the first according to the government expenditure on R&D, which is achieved due to allocation of budgets to public research institutions, universities and national laboratories. The USA were the first to address the issue of new industrialization. In 2013 the plan of reviving the American manufacturing industry was formulated. Besides, there was established the program for accelerated creation of jobs and innovations in advanced manufacturing industries [3. P. 43].
In such context, the comparative analysis of policies used to support industrial development in the leading countries seems to be of high relevance. Taking into account the always present limitations of resources (intellectual, financial, material, etc.) it is not possible to tackle the issue of resources' most efficient distribution and the necessity of concentrating the available funds on potential breakthroughs. If stating that this policy should pursue along with the development goals, some socioeconomic goals, including securing employment in traditional sectors, we can conditionally correlate: social goals with the block of traditional sectors, economic goals with competitive sectors, development goals with "venture" sectors. Admitting the choice between these types of sectors we can obtain a number of possible combinations of support for their development. Support of all three types is in place in the case of China's comprehensive support. The option of assisting to competitive sectors describes the South Korea's case, which, for instance, is the world leader in the robot density per 10, 000 workers (more than 500) with the world average equaling 68 and Russia's two in 20151. The third comes Germany, which adopts the policy of developing traditional for it and competitive industries (machine-building and others). The case of Japan represents a successful combination of support provided to competitive and venture industries.
Such kind of policy is specifically addressed within the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). This way, Kazakhstan implemented the State program on accelerated industrial-innovative development for 2010-2014, which encompassed subprograms on the machine-building development, assistance to technological modernization, investment attraction, and export promotion. Currenty, the Program "Productivity-2020" is being run, which aims at modernization of technologies and industrial cycles [1. P. 59-60].
In the Russian economy, the leading role in supporting the development of advanced manufacturing technologies is assumed by the project of the National Technology Initiative detailed and supported by already created road maps and allocated budget funds according to some future markets. Within the Initiative there were specified 11 priority directions, which are now transformed into and supported as projects. The new vector of the industrial policy of the Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation in the long term presupposes, along with the existing specialization of the country in the world market, four or five global strategic roles.
1 World Robotics Report 2016. International Federation of Robotics Fund. Available at: https://ifr. org/ifr-press-releases/news/world-robotics-report-2016.
Conclusion
Therefore, in the transformation of the world industrial-technological landscape, including in the context of managing the development of advanced manufacturing technologies in national economies, the following main trends can be detected:
• existence of three main qualitative transitions in technological development (from physical to intellectual production, from B2B to the Internet of Things, from the concepts "hightech" and "low-tech" to the concept of advanced industries);
• presence of three groups of economies identified on the basis of combination of two most important indicators of efficiency of national technological development, namely R&D expenditure as a percentage of GDP and number of researchers per million people: economies that demonstrated rapid growth (Asian countries); developed economies with moderate growth; large developing countries that showed an increase in at least one of these indicators (Russia included);
• use of possible combinations of support for development of three important types of industries: traditional, competitive and venture.
Russia's ability to take maximum advantage of the chance to overstep the advanced production and technological boundaries will depend on a concerted effort of all participants of the process to run "the most important socioeconomic mega-project, the implementation of which will ensure the rise of the national economy at the next upward long wave of economic growth" [10. P. 17].
References
1. Aubakirova G. O programme novoy industrializatsii Respubliki Kazakhstan [On the new industrialization program of the Republic of Kazakhstan]. Ekonomist - Economist, 2013, no. 10, pp. 59-69.
2. Bodrunov S. D. Integratsiya proizvodstva, nauki i obrazovaniya kak osnova reindustrial-izatsii RF [Integration of production, science and education as the basis for the ^industrialization of the Russian Federation]. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya - World Economy and International Relations, 2015, no. 10, pp. 94-104.
3. Varnavskiy V. G. Global'naya konkurentosposobnost' obrabatyvayushchey promyshlen-nosti SShA [Global competitiveness of the manufacturing industry in the USA]. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya - World Economy and International Relations, 2015, no. 2, pp. 34-46.
4. Voronkova O. N. Formirovanie strategii importozameshcheniya na urovne regiona v kontekste zarubezhnogo opyta i natsional'nykh prioritetov [Formation of strategy of import substitution at the regional level in the context of foreign experience and national priorities]. Intellektualnye resursy - regionalnomu razvitiyu - Intellectual Resources to Regional Development, 2015, vol. 3, no. 1-3, pp. 9-15.
5. Gubanov S. S. Neoindustrializatsiya Rossii i nishcheta ee sabotazhnoy kritiki [Russia's new industrialization and the poverty of its sabotage criticism]. Ekonomist - Economist, 2014, no. 4, pp. 3-32.
6. Zaritskiy B. Ye. Evropa: reindustrializatsiya vs. deindustrializatsiya [Europe: Re-industrialization vs. Deindustrialization]. Ekonomicheskie nauki - Economic Sciences, 2014, no. 8 (117), pp. 169-175.
7. Ivanitskiy V. P., Zubkova L. D. Tendentsii razvitiya innovatsionnykh sistem: regional'nyy aspekt [Trends in development of innovative systems: A regional aspect]. Finansy i kredit -Finance and Credit, 2012, no. 1 (481), pp. 20-25.
8. Klinov V. Bol'shoy tsikl mirovoy ekonomiki v XXI veke [A large cycle of the world economy in the 21st century]. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya - World Economy and International Relations, 2016, vol. 60, no. 12, pp. 5-16.
9. Maltsev A. A. Ural'skaya promyshlennost': vozmozhnosti dlya rosta v postkrizisnoy faze [Ural region's industry: Opportunities for post-crisis growth]. Upravlenets - The Manager, 2015, no. 1 (53), pp. 22-27.
10. Silin Ya. P., Animitsa Ye. G., Novikova N. V. Pered vyzovami tret'ey volny industriali-zatsii: strana, region [Facing the challenges of the third wave of industrialization: Country, region]. Izvestiya Uralskogo gosudarstvennogo ekonomicheskogo universiteta - Journal of the Ural State University of Economics, 2016, no. 3 (65), pp. 14-25.
11. Tolkachev S. A., Teplyakov A. Yu. Metodologicheskie osnovy analiza transformat-sii global'nykh tsepochek stoimosti v khode neoindustrializatsii [Methodological bases of the analysis of the global value chains transformation in the course of new industrialization]. Ekonomicheskoe vozrozhdenie Rossii - Economic Renaissance of Russia, 2016, no. 3 (49), pp. 57-65.
12. Tsvetkova T. N., Tolkachev S. A. Gosudarstvennoe stimulirovanie razvitiya novoy in-dustrializatsii SShA [State stimulation of the new industrialization development in the USA]. In: Andrianov K. N. et al; Tolkachev S. A. (ed.) Promyshlennaya politika v usloviyakh novoy industrializatsii [Industrial policy under the new industrialization]. Moscow: MAKS Press, 2015, pp. 154-165.
13. Muro M., Rothwell J., Andes S., Fikri K., Kulkarni S. America's Advanced Industries. The Brookings Institution, 2015.
***
Управление развитием передовых производственных технологий в условиях изменения мирового индустриального ландшафта1
Ю. Г. Лаврикова, Е. Л. Андреева, А. Г. Тарасов
Обосновываются специфика переломного момента в мировом технологическом развитии и актуальность использования Россией создавшегося шанса для изменения ее позиционирования в глобальной экономике. Показана роль передовых производственных технологий как важнейшего фактора неоиндустриализации и обеспечения глобальной конкурентоспособности экономики. Охарактеризованы особенности современного мирового технологического развития, проведен компаративный анализ уровня промышленной конкурентоспособности, исследовательского потенциала национальных экономик и содействия промышленно-технологическому развитию в экономиках стран. Выявлены основные тенденции в изменении ландшафта мирового технологического развития, в том числе в контексте управления развитием производственных технологий в ведущих технологически развитых странах.
Ключевые слова: развитие производственных технологий; неоиндустриализация; глобальная промышленная конкурентоспособность; ландшафт мирового технологического развития; исследовательский потенциал экономик; содействие промышленно-технологическому развитию.
Источники:
1. Аубакирова Г. О программе новой индустриализации Республики Казахстан // Экономист. 2013. № 10. С. 59-69.
2. Бодрунов С. Д. Интеграция производства, науки и образования как основа реиндустриа-лизации РФ // Мировая экономика и международные отношения. 2015. № 10. С. 94-104.
3. Варнавский В. Г. Глобальная конкурентоспособность обрабатывающей промышленности США // Мировая экономика и международные отношения. 2015. № 2. С. 34-46.
1 Статья подготовлена в рамках проекта фундаментальных исследований Уральского отделения РАН № 15-14-7-2 «Прогнозная оценка приоритетных направлений модернизации уральского старопромышленного региона для расширения импортозамещения».
4. Воронкова О. Н. Формирование стратегии импортозамещения на уровне региона в контексте зарубежного опыта и национальных приоритетов // Интеллектуальные ресурсы - региональному развитию. 2015. Т. 3. № 1-3. С. 9-15.
5. Губанов С. С. Неоиндустриализация России и нищета ее саботажной критики // Экономист. 2014. № 4. С. 3-32.
6. Зарицкий Б. Е. Европа: реиндустриализация vs. деиндустриализация // Экономические науки. 2014. № 8 (117). С. 169-175.
7. Иваницкий В. П., Зубкова Л. Д. Тенденции развития инновационных систем: региональный аспект // Финансы и кредит. 2012. № 1 (481). С. 20-25.
8. Клинов В. Большой цикл мировой экономики в XXI веке // Мировая экономика и международные отношения. 2016. Т. 60. № 12. С. 5-16.
9. Мальцев А. А. Уральская промышленность: возможности для роста в посткризисной фазе // Управленец. 2015. № 1 (53). С. 22-27.
10. Силин Я. П., Анимица Е. Г., Новикова Н. В. Перед вызовами третьей волны индустриализации: страна, регион // Известия Уральского государственного экономического университета. 2016. № 3 (65). С. 14-25.
11. Толкачев С. А., Тепляков А. Ю. Методологические основы анализа трансформации глобальных цепочек стоимости в ходе неоиндустриализации // Экономическое возрождение России. 2016. № 3 (49). С. 57-65.
12. Цветкова Т. Н., Толкачев С. А. Государственное стимулирование развития новой индустриализации США // Промышленная политика в условиях новой индустриализации / авт. кол.: К. Н. Андрианов и др.; под ред. С. А. Толкачева. М.: МАКС Пресс, 2015. С. 154-165.
13. Muro M., Rothwell J., Andes S., Fikri K., Kulkarni S. America's Advanced Industries. The Brookings Institution, 2015.
Сведения об авторах:
Ю. Г. Лаврикова, д-р экон. наук, Институт экономики УрО РАН
врио директора 620014, РФ, г. Екатеринбург,
Контактный телефон: (343) 371-45-36 ул. Московская, 29
e-mail: [email protected]
Е. Л. Андреева, д-р экон. наук, проф., Институт экономики УрО РАН
врио зам. директора 620014, РФ, г. Екатеринбург,
Контактный телефон: (343) 371-38-15 ул. Московская, 29
e-mail: [email protected]
А. Г. Тарасов, д-р экон. наук, проф., Институт экономики УрО РАН
ведущий научный сотрудник 620014, РФ, г. Екатеринбург,
Контактный телефон: (343) 371-38-15 ул. Московская, 29
e-mail: [email protected]
Ссылка для цитирования:
Lavrikova Yu. G., Andreeva Ye. L., Tarasov A. G. Managing the Development of Advanced Manufacturing Technologies Under Transformation of the World Industrial Landscape // Известия Уральского государственного экономического университета. 2017. № 4 (72). С. 79-87. For citation:
Lavrikova Yu. G., Andreeva Ye. L., Tarasov A. G. Managing the Development of Advanced Manufacturing Technologies Under Transformation of the World Industrial Landscape. Izvestiya Uralskogo gosudarstvennogo ekonomicheskogo universiteta - Journal of the Ural State University of Economics, 2017, no. 4 (72), pp. 79-87.
