CC BY
41
Regional and branch economy
UDC 65.011.1:334.716:33.845.01 = 111 DOI: 10.5862/JE.216.4
E.P. Karlina, N.A. Dubinina INDUSTRIAL POLICY: SYSTEMIC-STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTIC
Е.П. Карлина, Н.А. Дубинина
ПРОМЫШЛЕННАЯ ПОЛИТИКА: СИСТЕМНО-СТРУКТУРНАЯ ХАРАКТЕРИСТИКА
To determine the essence of the concept of industrial policy a system paradigm is used, which allowed presenting it in the form of specific patterns and identify the components. Interaction of subjects and objects of industrial policy is studied based on complex tools, goals, appropriate for levels of management. The mechanism of coordination of interests of the subjects and objects of industrial policy was proposed as a matrix, which makes it possible to determine the most effective methods of its formation and implementation that are based on selection of the industrial activities of strategic importance for different levels of management.
INDUSTRIAL POLITICS; STRUCTURE; SUBJECTS AND OBJECTS OF INDUSTRIAL POLITICS; PURPOSE OF FORMING AND TOOLS OF IMPLEMENTATION; METHODS OF FORMING AND IMPLEMENTATION.
Для определения сущности понятия «промышленная политика» использована системная парадигма, позволившая представить ее в виде определенной структуры и выявить состав компонентов. Рассмотрено взаимодействие субъектов и объектов промышленной политики на основе комплекса инструментов, целей, соответствующих уровням управления. Предложен механизм согласования интересов субъектов и объектов промышленной политики в виде матрицы, позволяющий определить наиболее эффективные методы ее формирования и реализации на основе выделения видов промышленной деятельности, имеющих стратегическое значение для различных уровней управления.
ПРОМЫШЛЕННАЯ ПОЛИТИКА; СТРУКТУРА; СУБЪЕКТЫ И ОБЪЕКТЫ ПРОМЫШЛЕННОЙ ПОЛИТИКИ; ЦЕЛИ ФОРМИРОВАНИЯ И ИНСТРУМЕНТЫ РЕАЛИЗАЦИИ; МЕТОДЫ ФОРМИРОВАНИЯ И РЕАЛИЗАЦИИ.
Modern trends in socio-economic development of Russia are characterized by dynamic transformations, aimed at achieving sustainable growth in industrial production and resulting in instability of the external environment economic security of the national economy. The effectiveness of these reforms is largely preconditioned by the status of the basis, strategically important industries, aimed at formation of new operating practices. The slow pace of structural transformation of the industry, imbalance of the reproduction mechanism, deficit and write-note state legal regulatory and management tools, significant depreciation of fixed assets have led to a decline in industrial production, the level of its
competitiveness, increase in the number of unprofitable enterprises and sectors of the national economy, highly dependent on imported components.
The main cause of this situation is the lack of a state control system for the domestic industry, aimed at ensuring the uniformity of strategic goals and tools for their achievement at the federal, regional and sector levels, as well as at the level of an individual enterprise.
In this regard, industrial policy, being one of the most important institutions of a market economy, should become the main tool for implementing the country's interests in the processes of economic modernization.
The main aspect of industrial policy should include promotion of formation of a new type of structure of an industrial complex that supports sustainable development of industrial production, efficiency and competitiveness, through enhancing investment and innovation potential of the industry [1].
This approach will ensure the coordination of industrial policy between regional and federal authorities and create economic interest of economic entities in achieving high production capacity on the basis of main methods of its formation and implementation.
Analysis of theoretical and practical studies of the meaning of the concept of industrial policy has allowed us to identify four main approaches, including:
— process one, considering the industrial policy in the process of industrial development, economic entities or entrepreneurial initiative [2, 3];
— structural one, when the main objective of industrial policy is to restructure the industry [4—6];
— competitive one, with the priority goal of improving the competitiveness of the industry [7, 8];
— system one, characterizing the industrial policy system of relationships, attitudes, different activities [9, 10].
Ultimately, analysis of the existing approaches to the definition of industrial policy allows us to conclude that each of them characterizes only one among many of its aspects, taking into account only some specific research area. All the authors see the industrial policy as one of the directions of economic policy of the state [11].
The essence of industrial policy, as the main directions of economic policy of the state, manifested in the relationship of the main participants of economic relations at the federal, regional, and sector levels, consists in implementing its purpose — formation of hightech, competitive industrial sector, ensuring sustainability of economic systems.
In this regard, in our view, industrial policy should be seen as an instrument of government market environment, as well as individual industries and enterprises, with the aim of sustainable development of industrial production on the basis of enhancing investment and innovation potential, providing accelerated development of strategically important industries.
To determine the content of the notion of industrial policy, in our opinion, the first priority is a systematic approach that lets us focus the study on disclosing its integrity and identifying multiple interconnections and interdependences of its constituent elements and blending them into a single theoretical picture.
Application of the system approach to research is possible with the built system paradigm, through combining the achievements of the theory of systems and system analysis with the basic concepts of the modern economic theory. The actual content of the procedure for the use of the system paradigm, as a rule, is based on identifying the constituent elements, components, and studying their complex combinations.
The built system paradigm to the content of industrial policy allows considering it as a complex object, which has a certain structure, internal consistency and external relationships with other types of policies. The basic principle of building a system paradigm is consistent and mutually accounted requirements as to the types of government policies and their requirements to the formation of goals, principles, forms and methods of implementing industrial policy.
Thus, in our opinion, it is necessary to distinguish in the entire system of industrial policy, its structure, and the set of stable relationships and interactions between its components, their role (function) relative to each other.
The basis for the practical application of the system paradigm in public policy making is a universal approach, proposed by Y. Kornai and allowing determining feasibility of comprehensive reform package implementation as a whole or in stages, a procedure for passing new laws. In addition, the system paradigm, as the author believes, allows you to identify changes that can be initiated and carried out through participation of the state or in an evolutionary way [12].
In the future, the economic policy of the government based on the system paradigm was developed in the works of Kleiner. With the system paradigm, the author presents the economy as a whole system, whose composition is determined by interacting socio-economic systems and subsystems at meso-, micro- and nano-economic levels, sectors, territories, corporations, private citizens, community groups,
^^t^etersburgSate^olytechnica^UniversityJo 2(216) 2015
and other formations significant for the economy [13]. An important advantage of this provision for composition and interaction of the structural elements, in our opinion, lies in the possibility of simultaneous consideration of not only functioning, but also interaction of individual economic entities of different levels and at different levels of the external environment.
In addition, based on the classification of economic systems with regard to location, scale (macro — and micro — economic systems), internal structure, distribution of property, inherent methods of regulating the author has presented the fundamental typology of economic systems. A distinctive feature of this typology is its formation taking into account the factors of time and space, based on the key characteristics of relationships of the systems with the external environment, which allows us to define it as a new spatio-temporal typology.
Further research results by Kleiner were used by the academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences A.I. Tatarkin when forming the structure of industrial policy. Tatarkin considers it appropriate to provide the constituent elements of industrial policy in the form of model economic systems, such as: objects, environments, processes, and projects. To set objectives of the industrial policy the author has used the typology of economic systems, developed by the Institute of Economics, Ural branch of RAS, determining the development of the industrial sector:
— system entities, combining state and municipal bodies, economic, scientific and public organizations can affect the development of the industrial complex;
— the system of subjective actions (decisions, laws) adopted by the subjects for the development of the industrial complex;
— system objects, including organizations, enterprises, firms, legal and physical persons implementing reproductive functions in the industry;
— final results as a set of indicators, thoroughly and completely reflecting what is happening in the object of quantitative and qualitative changes in the industrial complex [14].
In the author's opinion, a decisive role in the industrial development is played by the objects, which are considered organizations, such as enterprises, legal entities and individuals, etc.
those which implement reproductive functions. The underlying basis for implementing the system of economic interest interaction is the environment. Moreover, accounting for its structural components, the environment can be considered as institutional, in case its character is emphasized, the environment acts as competitive. It is the environment, according to the author, which is a framework that allows innovation to spread from one object to another. While specific elements of innovation contribute projects to the industry, which are relatively short-term, significant change in the industrial sector of the economy. Consistent and, most of all, evolutionary changes of status for certain environments or objects, disseminating innovations in economic space are called «processes» by the author. According to the research results the author concluded that industry, as a system, has the characteristics of all four types of economic systems, but it ibest combines the properties of the production objects with properties of communication environments [15].
The comparative analysis allowed the author to reveal the identity of abilities of economic systems and industrial policy. In reality, every economic system, living certain stages of the life cycle, is implemented in creation, support of existence, development, and interaction with other systems, and, in addition, in the ability to limit or terminate the operation of, or interaction with other systems to maintain its own existence and development. It is fair to assume that the expressed abilities of economic systems are common for industrial policy at different stages of functioning and development of the industry, which achieves specific goals, in terms of its industrial structure formation.
Thus, it is worth agreeing with the author's statement that the structure of industrial policy varies, both in the context of time and space, which suggests its possible change depending on the stage of the life cycle of the economic system, serving as an object of the industrial policy.
But, at the same time, in our opinion, the elements of the industrial policy structure, presented by the author, are somewhat duplicated. In particular, processes and projects essentially reflect changes either in the industrial sector or in certain environments or objects in terms of economic space. In addition, the author does not
specify the methods to be used to implement these elements, or the need to implement them.
In the Soviet period objectives, methods and measures (tools) for the industrial policy structure implementation were used as its fundamental elements. Among the key policy instruments the dominating ones were administrative-command and fiscal tools, the state monopoly on foreign trade. The administrative-command tools are represented with: «pressure», repression, centralized regulation of cash flows to maximize the use of savings as investments in the development of industry, currency regulation and control, aimed at preventing the export of capital from the country, price regulation, consumption regulation, income regulation, demand management.
An interesting approach to the content of industrial policy elements was reflected in the report developed by the Committee for Industrial Policy of the Federation Council "Aims, methods, and measures of industrial policy of the Russian Federation" in 2004, therewith the producer of goods and services is considered as an object of industrial policy — an enterprise in any field of activity that delivers goods or services (trade, transport, or insurance company, bank, warehouse and so on). The subject of industrial policy is defined as a state of the modern type in the form of an abstract corporation, including the government and citizens that has a clearly defined boundaries and exists only on the basis of recognition by other nations.
A variety of tools, as means of industrial policy presented by the authors in the form of measures of state influence on concrete blocks of the producer's model: owner (or joint owner), provider of production factors, consumer of the produced goods, recipient of tax payments, controller of production factors markets, final products, the manufacturer's activities, an arbitrator in economic disputes, political entity in international relations, affecting the operation of the manufacturer or the markets in which it participates [16].
Thus, the above approaches to the definition of the structural elements of industrial policy and their composition, allow us to conclude about their possible variability due to the diversity of changes in either the industrial sector or in certain environments or objects within the economic space.
However, most authors identify the concepts of structure elements (components) and the
composition of the elements (components) patterns of industrial policy that do not allow to clearly articulate goals and objectives of industrial policy as a system, tools and methods of its implementation at different levels of management.
According to the authors, industrial policy as a complex system must have a certain structure, describing its organization, sustainable order of elements and relationships, regardless of the level of the hierarchy. In this regard, it is advisable to highlight the following elements of the industrial policy structure: subjects, objects, goals, tools, and methods of forming and realization.
The composition and content of each element of industrial policy is determined depending on the hierarchy level of development, management and implementation.
Moreover, development and implementation of the state industrial policy should be based on the projected national strategic objectives for a specific local area, a cluster or a corporation. The main function of this type of policy lies in the development of a set of management actions aimed at developing the potential of territorial and sectoral industrial complex, satisfying the interests of the subjects of industrial policy at all levels.
Therefore, the level of industrial control policy determines the structure and content of its structural components — subjects and objects, the purposes of establishing, tools and methods of implementation.
The composition of the goals of industrial policy should be determined on the basis of allocation of global goals and corresponding private purposes.
The global objective of industrial policy should include creation of competitive industrial production, ensuring sustainable development of economic systems.
The following can be distinguished as sub-purposes:
— the balance of interests of economic entities and the state;
— restructuring of industrial production;
— technical updates on the basis of innovation;
— creation of attractive investment image.
Objects of industrial policy are economic
entities, the composition of which is defined by an appropriate level of review: industry, territorial production complexes, individual industrial enterprises, corporations or clusters.
St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University Journal. Economics no. 2(216) 2015
Concept of industrial policy as a system
Considering the traditional interpretation, which limits the subjects of industrial policy only by federal and regional authorities, we find it necessary to expand their composition.
First of all, it is not necessary to limit the management processes of adaptation and development industry, by just federal and regional level, but also consider a municipal level in a subject of the Russian Federation.
The second aspect is based on the fact that in achieving the objectives of industrial policy significant role belongs to economic entities, namely, representatives of industrial businesses in various sectors (public, private, mixed), and legal forms. In addition, you must consider investors as participants, as they have a significant impact on the pace and quality of innovative production development [17].
Thirdly, implementation of industrial policy implies presence and active participation of sectoral management bodies (ministries, centers of cluster development, specialized managing companies and so on), institutional infrastructure (tax and banking structure, Chambers of Commerce, agencies for strategic initiatives, industry associations, unions, public organizations and associations, and so on), which are systems of a higher order and which specify requirements and limitations for the objects of industrial policy.
Subjects and objects of industrial policy interact by means of a complex of tools, been
interdependent due to the objectives of industrial policy, which correspond to the levels of control (Figure).
Considering the virtual absence of effective instruments for implementing industrial policy in the framework of the established state legal and economic mechanism of management in the 1990s in Russia, in our opinion, a large-scale restoration of legal regulation of industrial policy is needed. This idea is justified by the fact that, as practice shows, simultaneous use of many tools, among which there are conflicting ones causes certain difficulties. First of all, the issue is about methods of state regulation, with the help of which the goals and objectives of industrial policy can be settled:
1. Economic methods, combining in its structure:
— financial methods, including leasing, lending, warranting, foreign currency exchange and investment regulation, subsidy mechanisms;
— tax methods (tax regimes, depreciation policy, target allocations for science, training, and related social problems);
— tariff and non — tariff methods of customs regulation (tariff policy on services of natural monopolies);
— banking regulation, stimulating inter-sectoral capital mobility.
2. Institutional approaches, including investment instruments for useing off-budget and target
budget funds, special operations on the stock markets, stimulating development of industry.
3. Administrative methods that are implemented by specially authorized bodies of regulation, coordination, consulting, public administration.
4. Socio-political practices aimed at effective solution of social problems in industry, adhering to special policy for state-owned and state unitary enterprises, and enterprises with mixed capital. Implementation of these methods should be helped by target programs of the federal and regional level, target address federal laws.
It must be emphasized that implementation of the above methods is possible through cooperation of industrial enterprises and public authorities. However, the determining factor of the possible active and dynamic application of the above methods is state legal administration.
The abovementioned helps to clarify the content of industrial policy as a set of economic relations of the state, regional and municipal authorities, business entities, providing conditions for high-tech, competitive industrial complex in order to achieve sustainable development of the national economy.
You should note that industrial policy should be implemented based not only on ensuring internal coordination of its constituent elements, but also relationships with other policies — economic, regional, innovation, investment, personnel, social and other. Being one of the directions of the state policy, with specific points of contact with other areas, industrial policy commonly has the specific objectives and implementation tools.
A systematic approach to understanding industrial policy means that the state should provide appropriate support not only to specific economic entities, but also to form the priorities of implementation of industrial potential and structural reforms, to take into account territorial features of economic development, to initiate the formation and development of a favorable institutional environment. When developing industrial policy on the basis of system approach, special attention should be paid to consistency and mutual accounting of requirements to other types of government policies, and requirements of these policies to goals, principles, forms and methods of industrial policy implementation.
Therefore, the strategic goal of industrial policy is manifested in enhancing national competitiveness through production of goods and
services in competition with other countries, compliance with international standards and expansion of the share of national companies in domestic and global markets.
The principal features of the industrial policy of Russia at the present stage are:
— the priority of state interests when formulating and implementing industrial policy at all levels of economic systems;
— concentration of investment resources on strategically important kinds of industrial production;
— creation of large industrial corporate structures based on the principles of vertical production, technological conglomerate and horizontal integration [18];
— sequential update of the technical base of industry based on high-tech industries.
Goals, tools and methods of industrial policy implementation, in our opinion, should be carried out depending on the level of control that determines the feasibility of industrial policy structuring.
Industrial policy can be structured in different ways: type of activity (industry), hierarchical levels of governance (national, regional, municipal, enterprise). In turn, each level of industrial policy structuring is a set of elements that interact with each other, the main purpose of which is to coordinate the interests of its subjects and objects.
Coordination of interests of the subjects and objects of industrial policy is carried out in accordance with the development of economic systems at the macro (national economy), meso-(subjects of the Federation, territorial education, industrial complexes, clusters) and micro levels (industrial enterprises).
To organize the interests of the subjects and objects of industrial policy at different levels of governance, we use the method proposed by A.S. Likhachev [19] so as to understand the mechanism of coordination matrix, where at the intersection of columns and rows you can define the subjects and the level of industrial policy implementation. Possible types of subjects of industrial policy are represented by the federal authorities, regional authorities and bodies of local self-government, and business entities. Rows of the matrix are presented by a possible scale, or level of industrial policy implementation: macroeconomic, mesoeconomic and microeconomic (Table).
^st_Petersbuigstatejpoiytechnicai^niveisjtyJouinai-Econom^no- 2(216) 2015
Methods of formation and implementation of industrial policy
Subjects and levels of management Federal authorities Regional and municipal authorities Business subject
1. Serial method
macroeconomic level X
mesoeconomic level X
microeconomic level X
2. Vertical method
macroeconomic level X
mesoeconomic level X
microeconomic level X
3. Vertical-horizontal method
macroeconomic level X
mesoeconomic level X X
microeconomic level X X
4. Vertically integrated method
macroeconomic level X
mesoeconomic level X
microeconomic level X
The constructed matrices allowed us to identify four methods of formation and implementation of industrial policy.
The sequential method implies that when formulating and implementing industrial policy the goals and interests of the subjects of a higher level are taken into account. The advantage of the consistent method of formation and implementation of industrial policy is expressed in the dominance of indirect stimulation of competitive industries based on the concept of «soft» industrial policy.
However, poorly developed methodological, organizational and managerial aspects of industrial policy at all levels complicate practical application of this method.
In the vertical method, industrial policy is developed at the macro — level of federal authorities. A set of measures elaborated at this level is aimed at supporting particular sectors,
contributing to the creation of the institutional infrastructure of the meso-level (region) or private enterprises through targeted support. This method is commonly characterized with «tough» policy based on direct budget subsidies to industries or enterprises, projects where administrative levers are used.
The vertical-horizontal method involves territorial principle of formation and implementation of industrial policy, which allows solving national problems and territorial socio-economic problems, increasing the efficiency of support measures. This approach makes it possible to develop territorial-production complexes, clusters, considering the current structure of industrial activities at the regional level, the degree of production potential being used.
The object of the formation and implementation of industrial policy in the vertically integrated method are corporate structures (state corporations), which unite individual enterprises.
In our opinion, the most effective method of formation and implementation of industrial policy in modern conditions of the national economy is vertical-horizontal, allowing you to align the interests of the nation and territories on the basis of allocation of industrial activities of strategic importance both for the region and the national economy.
In conclusion, it should be noted that the national industrial policy of Russia at the present stage of development of the economy must first be formed with regard to understanding the new role of the Russian state in the world and feasibility of targets. This policy has, in our opinion, a number of essential features:
— equal participants in the development and implementation of industrial policy are public authorities, business, scientific and public organizations, emerging civil society institutions;
— objects of modern industrial policy at the macro level are separate sectors of the economy, large corporate structures with state participation in the capital; at the meso level are industrial complexes, clusters; industrial enterprises, producers of goods and services are at the micro level;
— subject to the control of the national industrial policy is the state, at the regional and
municipal level these are authorities of the Russian Federation, municipalities; private business also may be subject to industrial policy;
— the basis for enhancing competitiveness of industrial companies should be creation of national own production of imported goods analogues, diversification into new types of products, facilitation of insourcing-outsourcing;
— change of the main principle of management is transition from situational regulation to self-regulation, which will contribute to the reorientation of industrial policy from solving situational tasks of development to sustainable quality development.
Thus, industrial policy needs to become a system factor to increase the competitiveness of the Russian economy, which preconditions usefulness of the normative-legal framework for its development and implementation.
During the research the following results were obtained:
— the existing approaches to the definition of «industrial policy» were studied, which made it possible to use system-structural representation to describe its structure and composition of the components;
— formation of the structure of industrial policy was proposed by five key components: subjects, objects, goals, tools, methods of formation and implementation, whose composition is determined depending on the level of governance;
— methods of formation and implementation of industrial policy were selected based on the matrix approach: sequential, vertical, vertical-horizontal, vertically integrated;
— the most effective method of formation and implementation of industrial policy in modern conditions was substantiated: vertical-horizontal one, allowing you to accommodate the interests of the state and territories on the basis of distinguishing the industrial activities of strategic importance both for the region and for the national economy.
REFERENCES
1. Dubinina N.A., Lantsman E.N. Analiz podkhodov k formirovaniiu promyshlennoi politiki, Aktual'nye problemy ekonomiki i prava. 2013. № 4. S. 144—151.
(rus)
2. Kondrat'ev V. Promyshlennaia politika. Materialy k seminaru FKPI URL: http://www.old.chirkunov.ru/
(rus)
3. Gosudarstvennaia politika promyshlennogo razvitiia Rossii: ot problem k deistviiam. Pod red. E.M. Primakova i V.L. Makarova. M.: Nauka, 2004. S. 216. (rus)
4. Kuznetsov B. Nuzhna li Rossii promyshlennaia politika? URL: //http://www.primetass.ru/documents/ documents/20011218/20011218.asp (rus)
5. Kniaginin V.N., Shchedrovitskii P.G. Promyshlennaia politika Rossii: kto platit izderzhki globalizatsii. M.: Evropa, 2005. S. 160. (rus)
6. Vinslav Iu.B. Federal'naia promyshlennaia politika: k opredeleniiu prioritetov v kontekste itogov i tendentsii noveishei industrial'noi evoliutsii strany. Ros. ekon. zhurnal. 2008. № 1-2. S. 12—26. (rus)
7. Babkin A. V., Nogovitsyna O.S. Teoretiko-methodological aspects of the estimation of efficiency of the innovative infrastructure of the industrial complex of region. St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University Journal. Economics, 2012, no. 1(139), pp. 56—61. (rus)
8. Titov B.Iu. Innovatsionno-promyshlennaia politika: doklad k Ezhegodnomu ekonomicheskomu dokladu 2008 g. Obshcherossiiskoi obshchestvennoi organizatsii «Delovaia Rossiia» «Strategiia 2020»: ot ekonomiki «direktiv» k ekonomike «stimulov». URL: //ttp://www.biblio-globus.ru/docs/Annex_3.pdf (rus)
9. Tatarkin A. Promyshlennaia politika kak osnova sistemnoi modernizatsii ekonomiki Rossii. Vestnik Cheliabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriia «Ekonomika». 2008. № 19(120). S. 7. (rus)
10. Mitin S., Smorgonskii A. Effektivnaia promyshlennaia politika. Ekonomika Rossii: KhKhl vek. 2003. № 11. URL: //http://www.ruseconomy. ru/nomer11_200303/ec17.html (rus)
11. Karlina E.P., Polianskaia E.V., Solonenko A.A., Petrova E.P. Otsenka rezul'tativnosti gosudarstvennoi ekonomicheskoi politiki na mezourovne. Vestnik Astrakhanskogo gpsudarstvennogo tekhnicheskogo universiteta. Seriia «Ekonomika». 2013. № 1. S. 51—65. (rus)
12. Kornai Ia. Sistemnaia paradigma. Voprosy ekonomiki. 2002. № 4. S. 4. (rus)
13. Kleiner G. Sistemnaia paradigma i ekonomicheskaia politika. Obshchestvennye nauki i sovremennost'. 2007. № 2. S. 142—149. (rus)
14. Tatarkin A.I. Promyshlennaia politika kak osnova sistemnoi modernizatsii ekonomiki Rossii. Ekonomika i upravlenie: Rossiiskii nauchnyi zhurnal.
^^t^etersburgSate^olytechnica^UniversityJo 2(216) 2015
2008. № 2. S. 10. (rus)
15. Tatarkin A.I. Sistemnyi podkhod k razrabotke i realizatsii promyshlennoi politiki Rossii. II Dal'nevostochnyi mezhdunar. ekon. forum, g. Khabarovsk, 19 sent. 2007 g. URL: http://www.dvforum.ru/2007/doklads/ ks1_Tatar.aspx (rus)
16. Doklad o promyshlennoi politike Rossiiskoi Federatsii. Komitet po promyshlennoi politike Soveta Federatsii Federal'nogo sobraniia RF. URL: // http:// www.prompolit.ru/90976 (rus)
17. Babkin A.V., Nogovitsyna O.S. Teoretiko-methodological aspects of the estimation of efficiency of the innovative infrastructure of the industrial
complex of region. St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University Journal. Economics, 2012, no. 1(139), pp. 56—61. (rus)
18. Babkin A.V. Integrirovannye promyshlennye struktury kak ekonomicheskii sub"ekt rynka: sushchnost', printsipy, klassifikatsiia. Vestnik Astrakhanskogo gosudarstvennogo tekhnicheskogo universiteta. Seriia «Ekonomika». 2014. № 4. S. 7—23. (rus)
19. Likhachev A.S. Osnovnye podkhody k realizatsii regional'noi promyshlennoi politiki. Effektivnaia promyshlennaia politika — osnovnoi element regional nogo razvitiia: mater. kruglogo stola, 22 dekabria 2006 g. M., 2007. S. 34—42. (rus)
СПИСОК ЛИТЕРАТУРЫ
1. Дубинина Н.А., Ланцман Е.Н. Анализ подходов к формированию промышленной политики // Актуальные проблемы экономики и права. 2013. № 4. С. 144-151.
2. Кондратьев В. Промышленная политика. Материалы к семинару ФКПИ URL: http://www.old.chir kunov.ru/
3. Государственная политика промышленного развития России: от проблем к действиям / под ред. Е.М. Примакова и В.Л. Макарова. М.: Наука, 2004. С. 216.
4. Кузнецов Б. Нужна ли России промышленная политика? URL: //http://www.primetass.ru/docu ments/documents/20011218/20011218.asp
5. Княгинин В.Н., Щедровицкий П.Г. Промышленная политика России: кто платит издержки глобализации. М.: Европа, 2005. С. 160.
6. Винслав Ю.Б. Федеральная промышленная политика: к определению приоритетов в контексте итогов и тенденций новейшей индустриальной эволюции страны // Рос. экон. журнал. 2008. № 1-2. С. 12-26.
7. Бабкин А.В., Ноговицына О.С. Научно-методологические аспекты оценки эффективности инновационной инфраструктуры промышленного комплекса региона // Научно-технические ведомости Санкт-Петербургского государственного политехнического университета. Экономические науки. 2012. № 1(139). С. 56-61.
8. Титов Б.Ю. Инновационно-промышленная политика: доклад к Ежегодному экономическому докладу 2008 г. Общероссийской общественной организации «Деловая Россия» «Стратегия 2020»: от экономики «директив» к экономике «стимулов». URL: //ttp://www.biblio-globus.ru/docs/An nex_3.pdf
9. Татаркин А. Промышленная политика как основа системной модернизации экономики
России // Вестник Челябинского государственного университета. Серия «Экономика». 2008. № 19(120). С. 7.
10. Митин С., Сморгонский А. Эффективная промышленная политика // Экономика России: ХХ1 век. 2003. № 11. URL: //http://www.ruseconomy. ru/nomer11_200303/ec17.html
11. Карлина Е.П., Полянская Э.В., Солоненко А.А., Петрова Е.П. Оценка результативности государственной экономической политики на мезоуровне // Вестник Астраханского государственного технического университета. Серия «Экономика». 2013. № 1. С. 51-65.
12. Корнаи Я. Системная парадигма // Вопросы экономики. 2002. № 4. С. 4.
13. Клейнер Г. Системная парадигма и экономическая политика // Общественные науки и современность. 2007. № 2. С. 142-149.
14. Татаркин А.И. Промышленная политика как основа системной модернизации экономики России // Экономика и управление: Российский научный журнал. 2008. № 2. С. 10.
15. Татаркин А.И. Системный подход к разработке и реализации промышленной политики России // II Дальневосточный междунар. экон. форум, г. Хабаровск, 19 сент. 2007 г. URL: http://www. dvforum.ru/2007/doklads/ks1 _Tatar.aspx
16. Доклад о промышленной политике Российской Федерации / Комитет по промышленной политике Совета Федерации Федерального собрания РФ. URL: // http://www.prompolit.ru/90976
17. Бабкин А.В., Ноговицына О.С. Научно-методологические аспекты оценки эффективности инновационной инфраструктуры промышленного комплекса региона // Научно-технические ведомости Санкт-Петербургского государственного политехнического университета. Экономические науки. 2012. № 1(139) С. 56-61.
18. Бабкин А.В. Интегрированные промышленные структуры как экономический субъект рынка: сущность, принципы, классификация // Вестник Астраханского государственного технического университета. Серия «Экономика». 2014. № 4. С. 7-23.
19. Лихачев А.С. Основные подходы к реализации региональной промышленной политики // Эффективная промышленная политика - основной элемент регионального развития: матер. круглого стола, 22 декабря 2006 г. М., 2007. С. 34-42.
KARLINA Elena P. — Astrakhan state technical university.
414025. Tatishcheva str. 16. Astrakhan. Russia. E-mail: [email protected]
КАРЛИНА Елена Прокофьевна — заведующий кафедрой «Производственный менеджмент и организация предпринимательства» Астраханского государственного технического университета, доктор экономических наук, профессор.
414025, ул. Татищева, д. 16, г. Астрахань, Россия. E-mail: [email protected]
DUBININA Natal'ia A. — Federal state budgetary educational establishment of the highest vocational education the Astrakhan state technical university.
414025. Tatishcheva str. 16. Astrakhan. Russia. E-mail: [email protected]
ДУБИНИНА Наталья Александровна — профессор Астраханского государственного технического университета, кандидат экономических наук.
414025, ул. Татищева, д. 16, г. Астрахань, Россия. E-mail: [email protected]
© St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, 2015
