Structural shifts in the Russian economy in transition Oleg Yuryevich Krasilnikov. Abstract: Structural shifts in the modern Russian economy Structural shifts in the modern economy

Structural shifts in the economy

Formation of an open economy

38. Structural shifts in the economy. Formation of an open economy

Sectoral and regional (territorial) structure of the national economy.

The main directions of structural reforms in the Russian Federation.

Changing business conditions in the modern world.

Small and large open economy.

Transition of the Russian Federation to an open economy.

06.01.2022

The national economy of the country is characterized by a certain structure, i.e. set of interrelated industries. Among them, it is customary to distinguish two groups - branches of material production (industry, agriculture, transport, construction, etc.) and branches of the socio-cultural sphere (non-material production), which include education, science, healthcare, management, etc. Their difference lies in the fact that a material product is created in material production, and a spiritual, intellectual, information product and services are created in non-material production.

Regional structure is the territorial aspect of the location of industries. Russia is the largest country in the world (1/8 of the land), therefore, territorial differences in economic conditions are especially important for it.

Structural shifts in the economy are changes in inter- and intra-sectoral proportions in the national economy. The main driving force of structural shifts in the modern world is the market mechanism, for the smooth operation of which the government of the country must create institutional conditions.

For this purpose, since the early 1990s 20th century The Government of the Russian Federation is carrying out market reforms, having carried out several stages of reforming the economy, as a result of which the crisis of the transition period was overcome, the economy was stabilized, and measures were taken to ensure sustainable economic growth and the transition to an innovative type of development.

Structural restructuring cannot be carried out either instantly or in a short period - it takes place over many years, often several decades. Here the effect of inertia of the huge masses of redistributed capital, labor, financial and organizational resources of production operates, especially when it comes to the transition from a planned-distributive to a market system.

In order for Russia to be able to join the developed countries of the world, it should:

- switch to an innovative path of development, in which the basis of the economy is made up of technical innovations introduced into production and the service sector based on scientific and technical progress. At present, the innovative level of the country is 5-10% of the output. The construction of the Skolkovo innovation center near Moscow and the course towards the widespread introduction of nanotechnologies will make it possible to start changes in this area;
- move away from the raw material orientation of the national economy, in which the main role is played by the extraction and export (80%) of the natural resources of oil, gas, timber, metals;
- to develop a group of branches of the consumer complex, working for the needs of the population. Today, the demand for these goods is largely unreasonably met by imports. In this case, the problem of ensuring the food security of the country is especially acute;
- speed up transformations in the infrastructure of the economy: develop and reduce the cost of road transport networks by several times; to create a sustainable electricity and gas supply throughout the territory, to form modern integrated logistics systems for providing large industrial centers of the country with production and consumption resources.

Carrying out structural shifts in the economy requires an effective fight against monopoly, debugging new forms of cooperation within the CIS.

An open economy is characterized by the globalization of the economy, the information saturation of the economy, the mobility of capital and labor flows, the emergence of new forms of economic management and the exchange of goods. Under these conditions, the development of any country must be balanced and balanced not only in terms of internal economic parameters, but also taking into account external interactions with other countries, and they can be based on the principle of forming a model of a small or large open economy.

The model of a small open economy assumes that the country occupies a small share in the world economy, adjusts to the prevailing conditions in the global financial market, and does not have a significant impact on the world interest rate, which determines the flow of foreign investment into the country.

A large open economy is represented by countries that determine the main processes taking place in the world economy and establish the rules for market interaction between countries. This model is represented by the USA, Japan, Germany, China.

Russia is in the process of building a model of a small open economy. Along the way, she will:

- join the World Trade Organization (WTO);
- to balance the system of domestic prices with the world level;
- optimize dynamics exchange rate the ruble, which is currently not an independent indicator of the state of the Russian economy;
- rationalize the customs policy and improve the taxation of commodity flows when crossing the border;
- reduce inflation to an acceptable international level of 4-5% per annum;
- make doing business in the country transparent and reduce the shadow economy five to six times.

The country's economy has a certain structure- the ratio between the sectors of the economy, its industries, regions and firms. By the beginning of the transitional economy (1991), the structure of the Russian economy was extremely deformed: 1) hypertrophy of the defense and mining industries; underdevelopment of the production of consumer goods and services, the presence of excess capacity in the manufacturing industry; 2) the costly nature of the economy, the low level of technology and the direct loss of resources due to the underdevelopment of the production infrastructure; 3) dependence on imports of goods and services with a poorly diversified export potential.

The main tasks of structural policy today are:
1) qualitative renewal of technologies, creation of sources of long-term growth;
2) redistribution of resources in favor of the development of the consumer sector of the economy.

1) accelerated development of the civilian sector of the economy by reducing the defense sector, or through the so-called conversion;

2) development of a complex of industries that ensure the effective functioning of the scientific and technical potential of the country;

3) creation of a modern production infrastructure - information, energy, transport and storage support.

Modern structural shifts in the economies of industrialized countries are of a systemic nature and are part of a global macro-shift that predetermines the transition from an industrial to a post-industrial society. These shifts are characterized by a relative decrease in the share of traditional industries and ways of life (primarily Agriculture, extractive and manufacturing industries), as well as an increase in the share of the service sector, high-tech and science-intensive industries, accumulating the latest achievements of scientific and technological progress. They are international in nature, reflecting global trends in the development of productive forces. More and more new countries and regions are gradually involved in the orbit of scientific and technological progress, which leads to new forms of division of labor within the world economy.

At the present stage, the processes of structural changes in the economies of industrialized countries have received a significant acceleration. If earlier the transition from pre-industrial to industrial society took centuries, then the macro-shift to the post-industrial (information) formation being experienced today fits in decades. Comparative analysis changes in the economies of various countries of the world shows that for all the national specifics in the long term, these changes are unidirectional. After all, all countries, whether highly or underdeveloped, follow the same path of socio-historical progress, with certain key points of scientific and technical inventions and discoveries.

The globalization of the world economy requires conjugation of the trajectories of development of various civilizations, their voluntary unification, and joint evolution.

Comparison of the current state of the structure of the economy of Russia and industrialized countries, unfortunately, is not in favor of our country. There is a significant gap in the pace and direction of structural shifts in the economic systems of Russia, on the one hand, and the advanced states of the West, on the other. The share of advanced technological structures in the Russian economy has been steadily declining in recent years and is now approaching 10%, while the share of traditional, backward structures is growing and totals more than 50%.

In order to solve these problems, it is advisable to develop a market system of economic management. And this means strengthening the dominance of private property based on competition, the system of markets, prices and the openness of the economy. open economy- the economy participating in foreign economic relations. The degree of openness of the economy is measured by the share of its international (foreign trade) sector in GDP.

import the bias towards the consumer sphere remains. hallmark modern period is the reorientation from the import of raw materials for light and food industries (grain, fabrics, raw cotton) to the import of finished consumer goods with a high level of profitability (primarily food). This high degree of dependence on food imports, on the one hand, poses a potential threat to economic security countries. On the other hand, it is impossible not to see that as a result of an ill-conceived foreign trade policy, Western manufacturers often dump on the domestic markets of Russia products that are quite cheap, but often inferior in quality to domestic ones.

In the commodity structure of the Russian export fuel and raw materials predominate.

The foreign economic policy of Russia at the beginning of the third millennium is aimed at ensuring:

1. best conditions access of Russian goods, services and labor to world markets;

2. effective protection of the internal market for goods, services and labor;

3. access to international resources of strategic importance for economic development (such as capital and technology, goods and services, the production of which is absent or limited);

4. favorable balance of payments of the country;

5. effectiveness of state support for the export of high value-added products;

6. observance of the principle of reciprocity - a favorable balance of mutual concessions and obligations.

On the issue of Russia's accession to the WTO, there are many opinions, both negative and positive. But most importantly, this will allow it to take part in the development of decisions for a new round of multilateral trade negotiations, and most importantly, on conditions that eliminate discrimination against Russia in foreign markets.

I. ECONOMY

Enterprise size, people

Enterprise size, people

The deepening social differentiation of the population requires strengthening the social component of the course of market reforms in Russia. In the current conditions, transformations in the social sphere should be aimed at achieving the following main goals:
– ensuring the most effective protection of the socially vulnerable population;
– implementation of universal accessibility and socially acceptable quality of basic social benefits;
- creation of economic conditions that allow citizens to use their own income to have a higher level of social consumption, including housing, the quality of education and health services, a decent standard of living in old age;
- the formation of institutions in the socio-cultural sphere that create the opportunity for the most complete mobilization of funds from the population and enterprises, the effective use of these funds, and on this basis - the provision of high quality and opportunities for a wide choice of social services by the population.

The program of social reforms proposed by the government is designed to provide guidelines that allow building social policy based on the resources and capabilities actually available to the state. Only in this case, an active social policy acts not as a constraint, but as a catalyst for economic growth.

The goals and mechanisms of the structural maneuver for the short-term (3-5 years) and long-term (10-50 years) perspectives are different. In the short term, one can count on a more efficient use of existing production capacities and the involvement of additional resources (natural, human) in production. The long-term period solves other problems: a radical renewal of technologies and the transition to an efficient science-intensive, low-cost, environmentally-protective type of economic growth; reduction of inefficient capital construction; social reorientation of the economy. In this regard, the following structural shifts in the economy:
1) accelerated development of the civilian sector of the economy through the reduction of the defense sector, or through the so-called conversion;
2) development of a complex of industries that ensure the effective functioning of the scientific and technical potential of the country;
3) creation of a modern production infrastructure - information, energy, transport and storage support.

In order to solve these problems, it is advisable to develop a market system of economic management. And this means strengthening the dominance of private property based on competition, the system of markets, prices and the openness of the economy. open economy- the economy participating in foreign trade. The degree of openness of the economy is measured by the share of its international (foreign trade) sector in GDP.

import the bias towards the consumer sphere remains. A distinctive feature of the modern period is the reorientation from the import of raw materials for the light and food industries (grain, fabrics, raw cotton) to the import of finished consumer goods with a high level of profitability (primarily food). Such a high degree of dependence on food imports, on the one hand, creates a potential threat to the economic security of the country. On the other hand, it is impossible not to see that as a result of an ill-conceived foreign trade policy, Western manufacturers often dump on the domestic markets of Russia products that are quite cheap, but often inferior in quality to domestic ones.

In the commodity structure of the Russian export fuel and raw materials predominate.

The foreign economic policy of Russia at the beginning of the third millennium will be aimed at ensuring:
– the best conditions for the access of Russian goods, services and labor to world markets;
– effective protection of the internal market for goods, services and labor;
– access to international resources of strategic importance for economic development (such as capital and technology, goods and services, the production of which is absent or limited);
– favorable balance of payments of the country;
– the effectiveness of state support for the export of high value-added products;
– observance of the principle of reciprocity – a favorable balance of mutual concessions and obligations.

Russia's accession to the WTO allows it to take part in the development of decisions for a new round of multilateral trade negotiations, and most importantly, on conditions that eliminate discrimination against Russia in foreign markets.

The article discusses shifts in the sectoral structures of employment, the main production assets and national income, their impact on the dynamics of the productivity of social labor; shifts in the structure of various groups of enterprises and their impact on the growth of labor productivity in industry are assessed. Peculiarities are considered economic crisis 1975–1985 and analyzes the functioning of labor, capital and goods markets. The ways of increasing the structural activity of the economy and accelerating the growth of labor productivity in the transition to market relations are shown.

general characteristics dynamics of the productivity of social labor

Retrospective analysis for 1965-1988 The dynamics of the productivity of social labor revealed that its general trend is a noticeable decrease in growth rates (Table 1).

Table 1. Average annual growth rates of national economic performance indicators, %

Index
Index
Labor productivity
return on assets
capital-labor ratio

If we take into account that the growth rate of labor productivity can be represented as the sum of the growth rates of capital-labor ratio and capital productivity, then, as the data in Table 1 show, the trend in the dynamics of social labor productivity was largely determined by the trend in national economic return on assets, which was characterized by a steady decline. It means that in the national economy, there was an accumulation of low-tech labor tools, which was aggravated by their inefficient use. For comparison, we note that the dynamics of capital productivity in the United States, despite local declines during periods of crisis, has a general upward trend. The negative growth rates of the national economic return on assets in our country, in our opinion, can be classified as an indicator of the crisis situation in social production, which became especially aggravated in 1975-1985. (see Table 1).

In addition, Table 1 shows that the growth rate of capital-labor ratio was constantly decreasing, which was caused by a decrease in the professional and qualification level of the labor force and its untimely preparation. The above trends predetermined the systematic decline in the rate of growth in the productivity of social labor.

Further analysis of trends in the dynamics of labor productivity revealed the presence of fairly stable three-year cyclic bursts in its growth rates (Fig. 1). This testifies to the objective nature of the dynamics of the productivity of social labor, which has had a noticeable impact on all economic processes.

The existence of such short-term cycles, in our opinion, is due to the following three reasons: first, the three-year cyclical fluctuations in the productivity of agricultural land; secondly, lags in investment and fund processes and, thirdly, sectoral structural shifts. Let us consider in more detail the influence of structural shifts on the dynamics of labor productivity.

Economic markets and macrostructural shifts

An analysis of the sectoral profile of the economy makes it possible to single out two main groups of growth factors in the productivity of social labor: intersectoral and intrasectoral.

The group of intersectoral factors characterizes the structural changes taking place in the economy as a result of the objective unevenness of the scientific and technological development of its elements. The directions of such structural shifts can be different. So, for example, the growth of labor productivity in the industry in specific economic conditions(demand for the products of a given industry, its availability of raw materials and materials, etc.) leads either to crowding out the employed, thereby causing changes in the sectoral employment structure, or to an increase in the scale of production, causing shifts in the sectoral structures of national income and fixed production assets . In reality, these shifts occur simultaneously in the economy.

The presence of these three economic markets, as the labor market, the capital market and the goods market, requires at least an approximate assessment of the effectiveness of the functioning of each market individually and as a whole. It can be obtained indirectly by analyzing shifts in the sectoral structures of employment, fixed assets and national income, since changes in each of these structures reflect the processes taking place in the respective economic markets.

Thus, shifts in the structure of employment show what processes took place in the labor market; changes in the structure of fixed production assets characterize the functioning of the capital market, and shifts in the sectoral structure of national income reflect the dynamics of processes in the commodity market.

Of particular interest is the study of the joint influence of changes in employment structures, fixed assets and national income on the dynamics of social labor productivity, which in turn allows us to establish the nature of the impact of the main economic markets on the efficiency of social production and economic growth.

It should be noted that countries with a market economy are characterized by the presence of a specific mechanism in the form of such state institutions as the labor exchange, commodity and stock exchanges, which contribute to the regulation of the functioning of the relevant economic markets.

To obtain quantitative estimates of the effectiveness of the functioning of these economic markets and their impact on the dynamics of the productivity of social labor, the NIEI under the State Planning Committee of the USSR developed appropriate methods (see). Their idea is to reveal the influence of changes in sectoral shares in the structures of employment, funds and national income on the rate of growth in the productivity of social labor. The estimates obtained in this way have a fairly meaningful interpretation.

Sectoral shifts and their impact on social labor productivity trends

Estimates of the impact of sectoral structural shifts on the growth rate of social labor productivity are given in Table. 2. Period 1966-1970 characterized by a very high growth in the productivity of social labor, 5.5% of which was provided by structural shifts (hereinafter, the contribution of structural shifts to the growth of labor productivity means the percentage of the values of the structural effect to the growth rate of labor productivity) . The main part of the structural effect (more than 60%) was accounted for by shifts in the structure of employment. In the Eighth Five-Year Plan, there was a situation when the level of labor productivity in industry was 1.5 times higher than the national economic level, while the same indicator for agriculture was only about 65% of the level of labor productivity in the national economy. A very intensive over 5 years redistribution of labor resources from the agricultural sector of the economy to industry and construction has led to an increase in the share of people employed in industry by more than 2% and a decrease in the share of people employed in agriculture by 4%. This redistribution of labor resources was reinforced by a corresponding overflow of investments: the share of fixed industrial assets increased by 0.6%, while the share of agricultural funds fell by 1.1%. These trends were intensified by the accelerated development of basic industries characterized by less labor intensity, which largely predetermined the accelerated growth of labor productivity in industry.

Rice. 1. Dynamics of the average annual growth rate of the productivity of social labor (%)

In the Ninth Five-Year Plan, the rate of increase in the productivity of social labor decreased markedly, with a 3% increase neutralized by labor-expenditure structural shifts. The decisive reason for the emerging slowdown was the fall in the absolute level of labor productivity in agriculture - the most significant after the industry of the structure-forming industry, which in 1971 accounted for up to 28% of all those employed in material production. During this period, shifts in the structure of employment slowed down, and although in general they were of a labor-saving nature (mainly due to the continued decline in the share of employed agricultural workers and their overflow into the sphere of trade and MTS), they did not have a noticeable effect on the dynamics of social labor productivity. However, this insignificant positive impact of shifts in the structure of employment was offset by labor-expenditure shifts in the sectoral structure of fixed assets. Their main trend was a rather sharp increase in the share of inefficient agricultural funds (by 1%), whose capital productivity in the period 1971-1975. fell at a record high rate (average annual value was 9%).

In the Tenth Five-Year Plan, the main trends characteristic of the structural shifts of 1971-1975 were preserved. The outflow of labor from agriculture continued (its share in the employment structure decreased by 1.8%) in industries and trade, the level of labor productivity of which was higher than the national economic level, which ensured the labor-saving nature of shifts in the employment structure. The structure of fixed assets in the period 1976-1980 was almost stable, minor shifts in it were of a neutral nature. The continuing slowdown in the rate of growth in the productivity of social labor was caused by local declines in the absolute level of labor productivity in transport and agriculture, as well as an accelerated decline in the efficiency of the use of fixed assets in industry and construction. Altogether, in the Tenth Five-Year Plan, structural shifts "swept off" 2.1% of the increase in the productivity of social labor.

Period 1981-1985 was characterized by a relative acceleration in the growth rate of labor productivity in agriculture and a significant slowdown in industry, which affected a further decrease in the growth rate of the overall productivity of social labor and led to a decrease in the share of net industrial output in the created national income by 5.3% and an increase in the share of agriculture by 4.4%. Shifts in the structures of employment and fixed assets occurred in the form of minor fluctuations in sectoral shares, which on the whole had a labor-saving character. The overall positive contribution of structural changes to the increase in the productivity of social labor in the eleventh five-year plan was 8.5%.

In 1986-1988 shifts in the sectoral structure of employment had the following trends: the share of those employed in agriculture continued to decrease (by 1.5%), and there was also a significant outflow of personnel from the transport and communications industries (their share decreased by 1.3%); the released labor resources were redistributed in the construction and trade sectors, the shares of which increased by 1.5 and 0.7%, respectively. In 1987 and 1988 for the first time since 1965 there was an absolute reduction in the number of people employed in material production. The ongoing changes in the structure of employment ensured more than 3% growth in the productivity of social labor.

The release of workers from agriculture went in parallel with the reduction in investment in it, as a result, the share of fixed agricultural production assets decreased by 0.6%. It is noteworthy that in 1988, due to the increasing rates of labor productivity in agriculture in recent years, there was a shift in the sequence of ranking sectoral levels of labor productivity: for the first time, agriculture outstripped construction. These processes led to significant shifts in the sectoral structure of national income, which resulted in a decrease in the share of industry by 3%, while the shares of agriculture and construction increased by 3.3 and 2.1%, respectively. The total impact of structural changes over the 3 years of the twelfth five-year plan amounted to more than 8.6% of the increase in the productivity of social labor.

Thus, the main focus in 1986-1988. was made to increase the efficiency of agriculture and achieve on this basis a slightly higher growth rate of the productivity of social labor. This is the main feature of this stage of economic development. As for the restructuring of social production, its contribution to the growth rate of the productivity of social labor in 1986-1988. was at the same level as in the eleventh five-year plan.

Thus, the analysis shows that the most progressive structure was the structure of employment, shifts in which throughout the entire period of the study had a stable labor-saving character. However, shifts in the sectoral structure of national income had the strongest and most contradictory effect, the quantitative effect of which increased further as a result of changes in intersectoral proportions of prices for the final product. The structure of fixed production assets turned out to be the most inert, the impact of changes in which was very insignificant and was almost neutral.

It must be emphasized that structural shifts cannot have a decisive influence on the dynamics of the productivity of social labor, since in the national economy there are always objective restrictions on the redistribution of labor resources and capital investments associated with the presence of intersectoral relations and the needs of the commodity market. The practice of analytical calculations shows that the contribution of structural shifts to the growth rate of labor productivity, as a rule, does not exceed 15%. Apparently, this estimate is a threshold value for the impact of macrostructural sectoral shifts. However, the ongoing progressive changes in the sectoral structure, first of all, create the prerequisites for further accelerated growth in labor productivity in all structural divisions of the economy. In this sense, we can talk about macrostructural effects distributed over time, which accumulate in a group of intra-industry factors.

The speed of structural shifts and the functioning of economic markets

From Table. 2 shows that in the absence of an organized labor market spontaneous intersectoral migration of labor resources from the point of view of the efficiency of their use turned out to be quite rational. However, the stochastic functioning of the stock market, and especially the commodity market, did not allow the progressive redistribution of the labor force to be supported by an appropriate investment policy and predetermined, in general, insignificant impact of structural changes on the growth of social labor productivity.

Table 2. Average annual growth rates of social labor productivity under the influence of structural changes, %

Growth rates
	including due to structural shifts (structural effect)	of which due to shifts in the structure
	including due to structural shifts (structural effect)	employment	national income	fixed assets

Lack of well-organized commodity and stock markets affected all structural changes, because it is investment overflows that induce shifts in the structures of fixed assets, employment and national income. In this sense, shifts in the structure of fixed production assets, which are tantamount to changes in the structure of jobs, are decisive, influencing the direction and speed of movement of the labor force and thereby regulating the scale of production.

Insufficient mobility of the structure of fixed assets was also caused by the duration of construction and investment lags, insufficiently intensive withdrawal of obsolete equipment, gigantic lifetimes of fixed assets, which led to the accumulation of ballast of means of production in the national economy, the huge volume of which made the structure of fixed production assets insensitive to renewal processes.

It should be noted that the fluctuations characteristic of the dynamics of the average annual growth rate of the productivity of social labor, according to calculations, were largely caused by structural shifts. Thus, for example, the trajectory of the growth rate of the productivity of social labor, “cleared” of structural effects, has a smaller amplitude of fluctuations than the trajectory that accumulates the influence of shifts. This fact indicates the ambiguous impact of structural shifts and the randomness of their effects. The disorder of structural effects was caused primarily by the lack of coordinated interaction between labor markets, goods and funds.. It should be noted that the impact of structural shifts on the whole was such that it increased the cyclical trends in the productivity of social labor.

According to calculations, the degree of differentiation of sectoral levels of labor productivity during 1965-1988. had different trends (Fig. 2). From 1965 to 1969 inclusive, differences in the levels of labor productivity of industries increased; in 1970 they sharply decreased, then through 1981 inclusive they slightly increased; starting from 1982, there was a clear trend towards equalization of sectoral levels of labor productivity, which continued until 1988. In 1988, the degree of their differentiation decreased by 1.8 times compared to 1965. Such changes can be considered positive, because they indicate the leveling of differences in the technological levels of industries and create objective prerequisites for leveling industry wage levels, which in turn facilitates the effective movement of labor resources between industries.

Calculations also showed that the intensity of shifts over the period 1965-1988. in the sectoral structure of national income was 1.8 times higher than in the structure of employment, and 2.7 times higher than the intensity of shifts in the sectoral structure of fixed production assets; in turn, the activity of shifts in the structure of employment was 1.5 times higher than in the structure of funds. The trajectories of the speed of sectoral structural shifts are shown in Fig.3.

The econometric calculations carried out showed that the intensity of macrostructural changes as a whole did not significantly depend on the degree of differentiation of labor productivity levels in the sectors of material production - the correlation coefficient was only 0.38. Moreover, the degree of dependence of the sectoral structure of national income was the highest - the correlation coefficient for it is 0.47; the structure of fixed production assets turned out to be less flexible - the correlation coefficient was 0.21; the structure of employment was characterized by an even lower degree of dependence - the correlation coefficient was only 0.14.

Calculations also made it possible to reveal that the reaction rate of sectoral structures of national income and fixed production assets to changes in the levels of dispersion of labor productivity in sectors was 2 years, while for the employment structure the lag was 3 years. It is noteworthy that the intensity of shifts in the structure of employment was higher than in the structure of fixed production assets. Nevertheless, the rate of response of the employment structure to intersectoral changes in labor productivity was less than the structure of fixed assets, and the dependence of the employment structure on the degree of differentiation in the levels of labor productivity of material production sectors was 1.5 times less than the dependence of the structure of funds. This means that the intensive redistribution of labor resources from agriculture to the industrial sector, which took place over 23 years, was caused by reasons not so much economic as social(for example, poorer living conditions in the countryside than in the city).

Economic crisis 1975- 1985 and its features

As a rule, the following signs are characteristic of an economic crisis: first, a sharp decrease in the rate of growth in the productivity of social labor; secondly, the negative growth rates of the national economic return on assets.

These signs were observed in the economy of the USSR, and they manifested themselves most clearly in 1975-1985. (see Table 1), which allows us to speak about the presence of a crisis situation during this period. In addition, in 1971-1980. sectoral structural shifts were of a labor-consuming nature, i.e., they had an underestimating effect on the growth of the productivity of social labor (see Table 2); this fact indicates the presence of a pronounced structural disorientation of the economy in the period 1975-1980, which is one of the specific features of the analyzed crisis.

Economic crisis 1975-1985 was caused primarily by the overaccumulation of inefficient fixed capital in material production and structural distortions in the development of its individual elements.

A distinctive feature of the crisis of 1975-1985. is its duration. The official denial of the possibility of the existence of crises in our country, the lack of means to prevent it and an effective economic mechanism that would allow us to get out of the crisis in a short time, led to the fact that the crisis phase turned out to be extended for a 10-year period.

Table 3. Dynamics of structure change industrial enterprises, %

Table 4. Dynamics of changes in the structure of the number of PPP industry, %

Other distinguishing feature crisis of 1975-1985. - a smooth transition of the economy into its phase and the same exit from it, i.e. blurring of the boundaries of the crisis period. In other words, this crisis did not have a catastrophic, collapsing character, but was prepared for quite a long time by the previous development of the economy, which already bears some features of the crisis.

Analysis and comparison of fig. 1-3 allow us to come to the following conclusions.

First, for the study period 1965-1988. there is a trend towards a decrease in the structural activity of the economy.

Secondly, during 1975-1985. there was a sharp decrease in the intensity of structural changes; especially noticeable is the slowdown in the rate of sectoral changes in the structures of employment and fixed assets. This indicates that one of the causes of the crisis was a decrease in the activity of the capital and labor markets; At the same time, there was an increased activity of the commodity market, which, having a disturbing effect on economic growth, made the main contribution to the process of structural disorientation of the economy. In general, one of the most significant features and causes of the economic crisis of 1975-1985. is a decrease in the structural activity of the economy during this period in contrast to the crises of Western countries, which are characterized by accelerated economic restructuring.

Thirdly, the decrease in the intensity of structural shifts led to a significant increase in the uneven growth of labor productivity in the sectors of material production during the crisis, which negatively affected the social economic development National economy.

Fourth, periods of increased structural activity outside the crisis period, as a rule, were accompanied (with a certain delay) by higher rates of growth in the productivity of social labor and economic development.

Trends in the enlargement of production facilities and the growth of labor productivity in industry

Along with macroeconomic shifts, there were also intra-industry structural changes. So, for example, in the period 1960-1987, according to the qualification surveys of the USSR State Statistics Committee, there were major shifts in the structure of the number of enterprises of various industrial groups (Table 3), the share of which in all macrostructures was the largest. In general, the structure of industrial enterprises was characterized by a decrease in the share of small enterprises (employed up to 100 people) and an increase in the share of medium (101 - 1000 people) and large (1001 or more people) industrial facilities.

Table 5. Ratio of labor productivity of various groups of enterprises to the industry average, %

Table 6. Average annual growth rates of industrial labor productivity under the influence of shifts in the employment structure, %

In parallel with the change in the structure of the number of enterprises of various groups, the structure of those employed in industry also changed (Table 4). Such shifts had a decisive influence on the growth rate of labor productivity in industry as a whole, because the labor productivity of the groups of enterprises under consideration was not the same (Table 5). Estimates of the direct impact of shifts in the structure of employment by groups of enterprises are given in Table. 6.

From Table. 6 shows that in 1961-1968. shifts in the structure of those employed in industry were labor-consuming in nature and compensated for about 2% of the total increase in labor productivity in the industry. This is due to the transition to the enlargement of industrial facilities, while the level of labor productivity at large enterprises was only 79% of that of small enterprises. To a certain extent, this situation was caused by the transfer of the national economic burden to the industrial sector of the economy and a significant influx of labor resources in the industry in the 1960s, which stimulated shifts in the reproductive structure of funds that initiated the process of expanding functioning production facilities. An additional impetus to the increase in the share of giant enterprises was given by shifts in the structure of industrial sub-sectors towards an increase in the share of basic industries, which are characterized by a higher level of employment.

In 1969-1972 these structural trends persisted, making an even greater negative contribution to the rate of labor productivity in industry and extinguishing its growth by 5.6%. This was due to the widening gap between the levels of labor productivity in small and large enterprises: in 1968 this indicator in giant enterprises was only 76% of the level of labor productivity in small enterprises.

Period 1973-1975 was characterized by a sharp decrease in the growth rate of labor productivity in industry compared with the previous 3 years, since it was during this period that the effect of the negative shifts that occurred in 1961-1972 began to affect. Negative contribution of structural shifts in 1973-1975. amounted to 4.4%.

Preservation of tendencies of gigantomania in 1976-1979. led to the fact that shifts in the structure of employment were offset by 10.9% of the increase in industrial productivity. The ongoing shifts were caused by the fundamentally incorrect structural and investment policies of ministries and departments, which led to an overestimation of the cost-effective capacity of enterprises, a decrease in the level of specialization, a loss of industrial production flexibility in meeting consumer demand, and an inefficient concentration of labor resources at large industrial facilities.

The policy of consolidation of industrial enterprises is largely associated with the erroneous opinion that the efficiency of production is the higher, the larger the size of production units. Here there is an identification of the concepts of technological and economic efficiency. Meanwhile, one has only to include in the consideration the costs of transporting raw materials and equipment and the readjustment of equipment in connection with the transition to the production of a new type of product, as the difference between these categories becomes significant. Characteristically, since 1975 there has been a trend towards a steady decline in the level of relative labor productivity of small enterprises (see Table 5), which was largely caused by the administrative pressure exerted on them by ministries, departments and banks.

Period 1970-1987 was marked by a radical change in structural policy: the share of small and medium-sized enterprises, which were characterized by a level of labor productivity above the industry average, grew, while the share of large enterprises decreased. However, the speed of the ongoing shifts was extremely slow, and their positive contribution to the growth of labor productivity in the industry amounted to only 0.5%. Nevertheless, a change in structural policy could no longer stop the catastrophic decline in the growth rates of industrial labor productivity. The main reason for this decline was overaccumulation of means of production, financial and labor resources at low-maneuverable and inefficient large industrial facilities, which took place over 20 years, from 1960 to 1979; the impact of structural distortions in the industry was expressed primarily in the slowdown in scientific and technological progress.

Thus, the analysis showed that shifts in the structure of employment at different hierarchical levels of the national economy were of a different nature: at the macro level - labor-saving, at the intra-industry - mainly labor-consuming. In other words, the calculations carried out allow us to conclude that structural adjustment in the future has large reserves for increasing the productivity of social labor not at the macro level, but at the level of industries.

The Exchange Mechanism and Organizational Forms as a Means of Increasing Labor Productivity and Structural Activity of the Economy

In order to achieve a balance in the structures of social production and ensure the labor-saving nature of structural changes, it seems appropriate not so much to have a powerful system of centralized planning and regulation, but to create and use such economic mechanisms and organizational structures that would increase the responsiveness of all sectors of the economy to market changes and trends in scientific and technological progress by intensifying structural changes. Otherwise, the process of accumulation of the ballast of means of production and labor resources will continue, leading to an irrational structure of the economy, which in turn will adversely affect the acceleration of scientific and technological progress, the rate of productivity of social labor and the level of well-being of the population.

One of the most important factors that determined the constant decline in the growth rate of the productivity of social labor in the USSR is the structural imbalance of the economy that has already emerged at least in the ninth five-year plan, which in 1975-1985. took on the character of a structural crisis. It was during this period that an urgent need arose for structural restructuring of the economy: the rate of productivity of social labor fell sharply and began to lag behind that in the United States. However, timely measures to eliminate structural conflicts in social production were not taken. And although during this period some positive structural shifts took place in the economy, the lack of free investment exchange and the inertia of the sectoral structures of fixed production assets and employment did not allow a radical change in the structure of social production. One of the reasons for the insufficiently active centralized influence on the process of restructuring the economy and preventing the deepening of the structural crisis was the lack of appropriate indicative means.

One of these indicators can be the stock exchange, an important function of which is its ability to respond to heightened needs during the period of structural adjustment (manifested, in particular, in a downward trend in the growth rate of social labor productivity) by a sharp decrease in the exchange value of fictitious capital, which contributes to the determination the most promising areas of investment and more or less prompt settlement of structural contradictions. In addition, the stock exchange is one of the most important means of constant interbranch capital flow.

To streamline the process of moving labor resources in our country, the creation of a labor exchange is of great importance. Firstly, it allows more or less rational staffing of jobs with appropriate personnel, while reducing frictional unemployment, which has always existed in the country in a hidden, modified form. Secondly, due to the fact that the exchange accumulates information on the flows of demand and supply of labor, it also performs the function of forecasting the demand for labor resources in a professional context, making it possible to anticipate promising shifts in the professionally qualified structure of employees through early training and retraining of personnel. , which is especially important in the current conditions of lagging behind the quality of the labor force from the needs of social production.

To implement the intersectoral investment activity of the structural units of the national economy, it is advisable to develop diversified diversified associations such as concerns. The US experience shows that labor productivity in enterprises owned by diversified companies is on average 20% higher than in single-industry associations. Moreover, econometric studies have also revealed a systematic relationship between the rate of return and productivity of US industrial groups (especially in capital goods industries) on the degree of diversification of their operations: according to these estimates, the transition to ever more extensive cross-industry structures contributes to higher profit rates and growth. labor productivity.

The creation of analogues of diversified concerns such as intersectoral scientific and technical complexes in the transition period to a market system of economic relations is an important factor in increasing the productivity of social labor and accelerating economic growth, because only large diversified associations can influence intersectoral investment processes by non-market methods, being channels within which the movement of capital can take place freely; the diversification of associations makes it easier for more profitable enterprises to invest in and modernize the production apparatus of less profitable enterprises within the industry. In addition, the diversification of industries is of great importance for the inter-sectoral redistribution of labor resources without their physical displacement and the destruction of existing organizational structures, which facilitates and accelerates progressive shifts in the sectoral structure of employment.

At the current stage, the need for a clear definition of promising directions for the development of production, dictated by the accelerated development of scientific and technological progress, has become aggravated. For this purpose, in the United States, it is of great importance to intensify the functioning of venture funds, which, being at the forefront of the overflow of material, financial and labor resources, identify by trial and error the most promising areas of investment, characterized by higher profitability and labor productivity. Massive investment decisions in the United States are made only on the basis of the results obtained by venture capital, which eliminates unjustified investments in low-productivity industries and leads to savings in social labor. In its research, the US National Research Council notes that the role of the country's small enterprises in the use of innovations, which are the main factor in the growth of labor productivity, is very high and tends to grow further. In modern conditions, the level of use of small innovative firms has become one of the indicators of the susceptibility of national economies to scientific and technical progress.

In Western countries, venture firms have become especially widespread in industries characterized by increased economic risk (robotics, electronics, production of new structural materials and biotechnologies), and in industries that produce consumer goods, the share of small enterprises reaches 98%.

World trends in the downsizing of enterprises are also associated with the emergence in the early 1970s of a number of factors that act to reduce the size of an efficient enterprise: the transition to electronic automation; the emergence of technologies characterized by a relatively low capital intensity; deepening differentiation of demand and division of labor; a sharp increase in the risk associated with the implementation of large projects; shortening the life cycle of goods; socio-psychological factors. For example, studies by Western econometricians have revealed a close correlation between the size of enterprises, on the one hand, and the intensity of work rhythm disturbances, the level of staff turnover and other negative phenomena, on the other.

From what has been said, it is clear how detrimental the influence of the tendencies of the total enlargement of the size of industrial enterprises on the acceleration of scientific and technical progress and the growth of labor productivity in our country. In order to intensify efforts to create venture enterprises, it seems appropriate to sharply increase centralized credit flows to innovative firms and create special risk capital funds at large industrial enterprises to finance the activities of venture objects being created.

Bibliography

1. Golovin I., Pevzner A. About small enterprises (organization and activity in new business conditions / / Plan. economy. 1988. No. 10.

2. The rate of profit and the overflow of capital. On the example of the USA. Moscow: Nauka, 1987.

3. The national economy of the USSR. stat. yearbooks for 1960-1988. M.: Finance and statistics.

4. Balatsky E. V. Methods for assessing the impact of macroeconomic structural changes on the dynamics of social labor productivity // The concept of employment in a socially oriented economy. M.: NIEI, 1990.

All estimates of this work are obtained on the basis of information published in , using the methods described in .

Balatsky E.V., Bogomolov Yu.P. Labor productivity and structural shifts in the economy// Izvestiya AN SSSR. Economic Series. No. 3, 1991. P. 28-39.

The new technological revolution unfolding before our eyes is leading to unprecedented structural changes in the economic system of society. In this situation, the tasks of a comprehensive study of structural shifts in the economy come to the fore. This task is especially relevant in the conditions of modern Russia, which needs to make a structural breakthrough into the future, to become a full member of the world economic community.

The relevance of the chosen topic is determined by the following aspects. Modern structural shifts in the economies of industrialized countries are of a systemic nature and are part of a global macro-shift that predetermines the transition from an industrial to a post-industrial society. These shifts are characterized by a relative decrease in the share of traditional industries and ways of life (primarily agriculture, extractive and manufacturing industries), as well as an increase in the share of the service sector, high-tech and knowledge-intensive industries, accumulating the latest achievements of scientific and technological progress. They are international in nature, reflecting global trends in the development of productive forces. More and more new countries and regions are gradually involved in the orbit of scientific and technological progress, which leads to new forms of division of labor within the world economy.

The purpose of this course work is to study the phenomenon of structural shifts in the modern Russian economy. In accordance with the goal, the following tasks can be distinguished:

To reveal the essence and concept of structural shifts;

Classify structural shifts according to various signs and grounds;

Explore the phenomenon of innovation as a modern basis for economic development;

To study the phenomenon of structural shifts in the modern Russian economy based on innovations, to assess and consider the prospects.

The object of study of this course work is the global and Russian economy, the subject is structural shifts in modern economy.

The structure of the economy is a complex system of interrelated proportions, taking shape under the influence of the existing technical basis, social mechanisms of distribution and exchange in accordance with social needs and the achieved level of labor productivity. The structure of the economy reflects the existing system of division of labor, which, "having often a technological origin, is essentially economic, is mediated by property relations and institutional forms, and is realized through exchange relations."

All this indicates a broad and multifaceted concept of structure. Thus, the economy can be considered both from the side of production, and from the side of distribution and consumption of the product and national income (reproduction structure), from the side of enterprises and industries, as well as from the side of individual structure-forming factors and processes.

All structures, including economic ones, go through the following stages in their development: origin, growth, period of maturity, regressive transformations (crisis) and disappearance, or decay. Origin and growth can be seen as a process of organization within the framework of the old structure, a process of struggle with conservative sides and elements, a process of changing systemic qualities. The period of maturity characterizes the stationary state of the structure, when the processes of organization and disorganization balance each other. Regressive transformations reflect the process of disorganization of the structure, when it, in turn, gives way to a new structure. Of great importance in the development of structures is continuity, the formation of new structures in the bowels of the old ones and on their basis. There are no and cannot be pure structures of one kind or another, they always contain elements of old and the beginnings of future relationships, in addition, various structures sometimes coexist with each other.

In this regard, we can single out such basic processes that take place in the bowels of each structure, such as adaptation and transformation. K. Marx also wrote that "... an organic system as an aggregate whole has its own prerequisites, and its development in the direction of integrity consists precisely in subordinating all elements of society to itself or creating organs from it that it still lacks." At this stage, the emerging elements of new structures cannot exist otherwise than by adapting to the old components, integrating into the system of their connections. However, gradually the connections are transformed, a new integrity arises, and everything repeats from the beginning.

The structure of the economy is characterized by heterogeneity, corresponding hierarchy and proportions between its components. The structural aspect of development is manifested both through quantitative growth and through certain qualitative changes in the economy of society. Such an interpretation of the structure of the economy is applicable to the study of development problems (replacement of some structures by others), the center of which is structural shifts.

In general, any change in the economic system is of a structural nature, since there is no matter outside the systems, which means that there can be no extrastructural changes. Another thing is that not all shifts lead to significant changes in the economy.

Such generality of structural changes leads to the fact that structural shifts in the economy as an independent category have been left out of deep scientific research. Basically, they are considered along with other economic phenomena and processes. There is some confusion between the concepts of structural changes and structural shifts. Often these words are used as synonyms. However, the concept of shifts to the greatest extent reflects the nature of the transformational processes taking place in economic structures. L. A. Berkovich defines structural shifts as "a change in the proportions economic system occurring under the influence of all structure-forming factors".

A structural shift is understood as any significant change in the internal structure of the system, the relationships between its elements, the laws of these relationships, leading to a change in the basic (integral) system qualities. It follows from the definition that structural shifts are a kind of dynamic processes occurring in the economic system. Along with them, other manifestations of economic dynamics stand out: cycles, fluctuations, perturbations.

The fundamental difference between structural shifts and the above processes is the fact of a change in the basic systemic qualities. Thus, perturbations and surface fluctuations in the economic structure do not lead to a change in the integral qualities of the system. Economic cycles, some of which are undoubtedly accompanied by shifts in the economic structure, rather represent a system of several structural shifts of different directions.

By assuming the basis for recognizing certain dynamic processes as structural shifts is a change in the basic systemic qualities, it is possible to determine the boundaries of the existence of shifts within a certain economic structure. Perturbations in the structure develop into a structural shift only when the integral qualities of the economic system change. This is the “lower bound” of the shift. The “upper limit” of structural shifts is the existence of the economic system itself, when further shifts in the structure lead to its destruction and the formation of a new system unit on its basis.

Structural shifts are undoubtedly transformative. However, speaking about the relationship between the concepts of structure and form, it should be noted that they are close in meaning, but not identical. The concept of form is broader. The form is a manifestation of the content in general, while the structure is one of the aspects of the form that characterizes the position and interconnections of elements in the system.

Structural shifts in the economy are classified according to various signs and grounds, which not only show all their diversity, but also allow us to characterize the same structural shift from different angles: proximity in space, length in time, coverage of economic elements:

1) Structural shifts can be grouped according to a historical basis - each stage of history has its own structural shifts in the economy (for example, shifts at the stage of transition from an agrarian society to an industrial one and then to an information one).

2) According to the territorial (geographical) coverage, shifts are divided into changes in the structure of the economy of certain regions, regions, countries, other territorial and administrative entities (whether it be the great economic depression in the United States or the industrial boom in post-war Germany).

3) According to the coverage of economic elements, global and local, macro, meso, micro and nanoshifts are distinguished. Microshifts are structural changes at the level of an enterprise, its divisions, firms; meso - at the level of more complex economic systems: corporations, industries. Macroshifts are changes in such economic formations as national and world economy. Macro-shifts lead to a change in the basic economic proportions and indicators of the functioning of the economy. Many local shifts in the economic structure (for example, the renewal of production at a single enterprise) merge into global shifts that change the whole picture of social and economic life beyond recognition.

In turn, all local economic structures experience powerful impacts of global macro shifts and are involved by them in the process of further structural transformation.

4) According to the speed, duration, depth and scale of changes, shifts are divided into evolutionary and revolutionary.

Structural shifts, on the one hand, are a continuous process, since economic activity is not interrupted even for a minute. On the other hand, they are characterized by rather large stages and stages, breaks in gradualness. The evolutionary course of changes in the economic structure is interrupted from time to time by the turbulent processes of its cardinal (revolutionary) renewal.

5) By nature, all structural shifts can be divided into irreversible and reversible (cyclical) shifts.

From a philosophical standpoint, any change in structure is irreversible. It is possible to speak only about relatively reversible phenomena and processes, about spiraling, because any repetition (cycle) is not an exact copy of the previous one.

According to a number of authors (J. Tinbergen, E. Hansen, R. Stone, B. Racine), the reversibility of structural changes is explained by the fact that they are a reflection of cyclical, oscillatory processes in the economy. An irreversible component of structural shifts in a constructively developing system is progressive economic growth, or vice versa - economic recession (crisis, disintegration) in destructively developing systems.

6) As an independent group, one can distinguish shifts in the structure of reproduction at all its stages: production, distribution, exchange and consumption.

The change in macroeconomic reproduction proportions is a generalizing result of the totality of structural shifts. Macroeconomic proportions, as a rule, include the reproductive structure of the total social product, the ratio of compensation funds, consumption and accumulation, the costs of living and past labor, the two divisions of social reproduction. The reproduction structure at the macro level is also characterized by the ratio of the most important production resources per annual social product. The indicators of production efficiency used in economic research - labor productivity, capital productivity, output of the final social product per unit of specific resources - are essentially structural indicators that characterize the economic system. The specific costs of production resources at the macro level obviously reflect not only the narrow technological aspects of reproduction, but also the effectiveness of the socio-economic mechanism, the entire system of production relations.

Macro shifts in the reproductive structure incorporate the entire set of structural shifts in the economy and determine the main trends in the development of the economic structure both at the national and global levels. Whatever structural process we take, it is always associated with certain changes in the structure of production, distribution, exchange or consumption. So, the production structure can be considered from technological, industry and other points of view.

Turning to different sections of the reproductive structure, it is necessary to consider production from the side of industry, technological and other structures, distribution from the side of the structure of income and investment, exchange from the side of the structure of trade and money circulation, as well as the structure of production and personal consumption.

It can be assumed that in the long run there is an objective economic law of the irreversibility of structural changes. This law is closely connected with the law of the steady growth of social needs and expresses essential and necessary, stable and recurring relationships between shifts in the structure of ever-growing social needs and changes in the structure of reproduction.

The differentiation of economic interests and the uneven growth of social needs has a direct impact on the structure of production, distribution, exchange and consumption. Social needs are fickle, the pace and direction of their changes are not the same. Some of them have low elasticity (for example, the need for basic necessities), others are very elastic. Some needs disappear, and others arise in their place due to the objective economic law of the rise of needs.

Developing economic interests and social needs expressing them entail structural shifts, but cannot be considered as their sufficient condition. The qualitative and quantitative scale of social needs is strictly determined by the mode of production, the level of development of science and technology. Another condition for structural change is the resources available and the possibilities for their use. Resource constraints and the increasing difficulty of finding them are also forcing structural reforms.

The process of structural shifts is a kind of core that permeates the entire economic system from top to bottom; it affects both the productive forces and the production relations of society. Consequently, structural shifts are a concentrated expression of the results of the interaction of productive forces and production relations.

Thus, the mechanism of structural shifts is understood as the contradictory interaction of the elements of the economic structure, with the help of which structural changes are carried out. With regard to the structure of the economy, the mechanism of structural shifts can be defined as a mechanism for coordinating shifts in the structure of production, distribution, exchange and consumption with shifts in the structure of needs.

Like any economic mechanism, the mechanism of structural shifts consists of subjects, objects and their interaction. The subjects of structural shifts are economic entities at various levels of the economy: individuals, households, enterprises, industries and regions, states and national economies within the framework of world economic relations. The objects of structural shifts are various elements of the economic system, including the already named business entities, which make up certain economic proportions that have qualitative and quantitative certainty at the macro, meso, micro and nanolevels. These can be separate categories of the population with different levels of income, elements of supply and demand, production units ranked by form of ownership, volume of production, industry, etc.

The task of optimizing the mechanism of structural shifts in the economy at the present stage of development cannot be successfully solved without the use of advanced logistics technologies and approaches to this problem. As an applied science, logistics develops new, effective methods for managing material, financial and information flows in the areas of production and circulation. In domestic and foreign literature, one can find a broader interpretation of the concept of logistics, in which the control object is not limited to the listed material and intangible flows. Today, logistics includes the management of human, energy, transport, financial, information and other flows that take place in economic systems. The term logistics is also used in situations related to the precise planning of an agreed sequence of actions.

One of the key factors that have led to radical structural changes in the world economy over the past 20–30 years has been the increasing economic role of innovation. Industrialized and newly industrialized countries began to fix the goals in the field of science and innovation in the program and strategic documents of their policies. Innovation is at the heart of the social division of labor and economic prosperity. The innovation process has turned from a “pinpoint” economic phenomenon into a dominant feature of economic development. The key impact on the long-term prospects for innovative development is the following factors Keywords: globalization, global competition, innovative behavior of firms, innovative policy of the state. In the global technological space, the emergence of new competing countries has an active impact on innovation processes. The role of international technology exchange, personnel mobility, innovations in solving global problems (climate change, energy, disease control) is growing.

The increasing complexity of innovations and their cross-industry nature make the corresponding investments more expensive and riskier. The criterion for survival in global competition is the ability to change rapidly, respond flexibly to knowledge received from outside, apply and commercially adapt to market needs. Of particular importance for intra-company capitalization is the benefit from knowledge produced within the company (own research, development, technology, know-how).

Under the influence of market conditions, the constantly changing nature of innovation requires intensive improvement of innovation policy instruments in the field of taxation, development of human capital, and targeted investment in R&D. The model of extensive use of resources is being replaced by an innovative one, which causes an acceleration in the pace of economic development based on the use of the potential of human innovation and an increase in the value added of economic activity. The qualitative characteristics of the economy are increasingly determined by technological shifts based on innovation, and radical transformations are taking place in the structure of the world economy. Innovative growth as a strategic direction for the development of the global economy in the coming decades will be provided mainly through the convergence of technologies, promising areas of which are information and communication technologies, bio- and nanotechnologies. The scale of funding for research and development is increasing, the knowledge intensity of basic industries and the service sector is increasing. Under the influence of innovations, the technological, reproductive and institutional structure of the economy is being transformed, the time of replacement of technological modes (TS) is accelerating. Innovative development is uneven and cyclical. Increasing the economic role of innovation, changing the pace, directions and mechanisms for the development of innovation processes are among the key factors that have led to radical structural shifts in the economies of industrialized and many developing countries. They are manifested in the growth of investments in education and science, technological and organizational innovations; leading dynamics of high-tech sectors of industry. The specifics of innovative activity - the uncertainty and smoothness of the result, the discrepancy between social and individual effects, high investment risks - enhances the importance of the innovative "component" in the activities of the state. The scale and mechanisms of support for science and innovation, a wide range of tools used determine the paradigm of the modern innovation policy of countries with developed market economies. Among its features are:

– the formation of tools and forms of public-private partnership, through which the state sends “innovative signals” to business, assists in the implementation of its major innovative projects (co-investment, creation of infrastructure, assistance in the transfer and diffusion of scientific results and technologies).

Intra-company science plays a special role in the innovation leap. In the EU countries (Germany, France, Austria), it accounts for 65-70% of the total costs for science, in the USA - 72%, in China - 71%.

With an increase in innovation risks, the innovation cycle unfolds not only within companies, but also within the framework of inter-corporate innovation relationships. Large companies create knowledge networks with the participation of universities, state scientific institutions, forming an ecosystem of open innovation, endowed with the joint search for new business opportunities. This system of network integration and specialization is also scalable globally. Universities play a special role in the formation of innovative potential. Their share in spending on science in 2009 was 27%, they serve as platforms for technology transfer. The sphere of innovative services is growing rapidly, expanding the innovative demand in the economy. In Japan, the average annual growth rate of research and development spending in the service sector in 1994-2009. exceeded 35% against 2% in the manufacturing industry. This trend is also characteristic of countries that do not have a high level of material and scientific and technical resources necessary for industrial and technological breakthroughs. The nature of innovations and innovative activity, forms, mechanisms of its organization and stimulation are undergoing a profound transformation. Scientific activity is the main source of innovation and a key factor in innovative growth. The dynamics of industrial production, the growth of its concentration led to the expansion of the scope of research and an increase in the number of people employed in this area. Only in the first half of the 20th century the number of scientists in the world has increased 8 times, and the cost of research and development - 400 times. Innovation as a field of knowledge about innovation, the science of the emergence, production and dissemination of practical innovations is becoming in demand in the context of global competition. Innovation, or innovation, is the process of creating, distributing and using a new practical tool (innovation) to better satisfy an already known consumer need.

According to the degree of novelty, two types of innovations are distinguished: 1) basic, opening fundamentally new practical means for new needs; 2) improving. According to the subject content, product, technological, social and cultural innovations are distinguished, and according to the degree of changes in these objects - modifying (incremental), improving (distinctive), breakthrough, integrating innovations. The sequence of the stage of activity for the creation, dissemination and use of innovation (commercial - the launch of large-scale production) is an innovative process.

For a full-fledged innovative development, certain prerequisites are required that form the conditions for their distribution and transformation into final economic benefits, promotion of innovative products and services to domestic and foreign markets. In the development of innovations, an important role is played by the emergence of innovation clusters - networks that have arisen in certain territories and link participants in innovation activity. For the commercialization of innovations, a socio-economic institution is being created - a national innovation system (NIS), which stimulates the growth of the effectiveness of network interactions in an uncertain and rapidly changing environment that requires elastic, dynamic and adaptive innovation systems. The most common type of NIS is market-network. It is an institutionalized network of motives, rules for parity interactions between public, private and joint organizations, focused on the creation and dissemination of innovations. Elements of its infrastructure are: technology parks, innovation and technology centers, science cities. The innovative apathy of the Russian NIS in the context of technological diversity is explained by the lack of motivation for the profitable investment of capital, high investment risks and the duration of the return on investment. R&D is the most important segment of NIS. Over the past 10–15 years, developed countries have completed the fourth technological revolution associated with the intellectualization of production and the formation of an information economy. The place of the leaders of scientific and technological progress in the world technological space is characterized by indicators of science intensity and science output of their economies.

The concept of a national innovation system was first introduced by K. Freeman in 1987 to explain country differences in the level of technological development. The NIS concept has received significant practical development as a model for the formation of the key principles of the OECD, the European Union. In modern literature, it is defined as a set of various institutions that, together and individually, contribute to the creation and dissemination of new technologies, forming the basis for the formation and implementation of policies and support for innovation.

The key components of the NIS are: innovation-active firms that invest in research and implementation of new technologies; specialized government institutions supporting or leading research and facilitating the dissemination of new technologies; institutes of higher education (universities) combining research and training activities; branches of legislation establishing the regime of intellectual property rights.

Within the framework of the NIS concept, special attention is paid to the directions and mechanisms of knowledge creation, its diffusion (transfer) and implementation (commercialization) in the context of the development of a knowledge-based economy. The most important component of the NIS is the knowledge creation subsystem - the R&D area. The science intensity of GDP (the share of R&D expenditures in GDP) in the USA, Japan and Germany remains at the level of 2.5–3.1%. Moreover, the growth in R&D costs was accompanied by an increase in the number of people employed in the scientific and technical sphere. Concentrating more than 35% of the world's science-intensive sector, the United States is developing biotechnologies, information and communication technologies, electronics, nanotechnologies, and aerospace technologies. In 2009, the US accounted for more than 50% of major innovations generated in developed countries. In 2009, Japan's domestic expenditure on R&D amounted to $124 billion. The public sector occupies a secondary place in R&D financing. In 2009, the share of industrial companies in the total amount of expenditures on science was 65.4% for the USA, 76% for Japan, and 68% for Germany. It is large companies that finance research and translate scientific results and inventions into real products and technologies, and take responsibility for the main directions of scientific and technological progress. The state plays the role of a catalyst for private investment in research activities in industry, encourages the development of the business sector in the scientific and technical field, creates infrastructure for it, and provides benefits. The growth in investment has allowed General Electric to increase the number of patentable innovations. It plans to invest $5 billion in breakthrough science over the next five years and expects additional total revenue of $25 billion. The most important feature The development of NIS in developed countries has been the commercialization of knowledge and the active supply of innovative goods and services to the market. In the US, in 2006, the "National Competitiveness Initiative: Global Leadership in Innovation" was proclaimed. Its goal is to support and stimulate innovation through the promotion of research with high potential, but a significant degree of risk, in areas that are critical for the country's social sphere.

Since 2006, Japan has been implementing the Third Science and Technology Development Plan. Its goal is to remove restrictions on the transfer of research results to production. Social benefits have been introduced to promote the development of innovation infrastructure and especially venture financing.

In 2008, a white paper was prepared in England called "Innovation Nation", which focuses on changing the concept of supporting innovation. In the new conditions for the development of the innovation process, the state should use tools not only to stimulate supply, but also to create demand for innovative products and services by building up the system of government contracts. Widely using direct and indirect methods of stimulation, the state directs the activity of private business in the direction of the innovation strategy. The most effective forms of cooperation between public and private organizations have become public-private partnerships to achieve specific scientific and technological results. For example, a research partnership involving 143 companies, 70 universities, 12 national laboratories, and 10 government agencies was involved in the development of a roadmap for breakthrough technologies in the chemical industry. The most common mechanisms for stimulating research and innovation activities include: the use of a system of targeted tax incentives to attract small and medium-sized businesses to innovate in the field of new technologies; concessional lending for scientific and technical developments; write-off of a significant part of scientific equipment according to accelerated depreciation rates. Enterprises are becoming interested in the accelerated implementation of R&D and reducing the time for development and implementation of new products of technological innovations, which allow increasing the amount of funds received in the form of a tax credit. R&D intensity in OECD countries in 2000 was 52.5% in high-tech industries. The development of venture capital financing takes central location in the formation of financial innovation infrastructure. Founded in the mid 1950s. venture business has become an effective tool for financial support and development of the innovation sector, contributing not only to the speedy development of advanced scientific and technical developments to create competitive high-tech products and technologies, but also to increasing the level of employment. American companies using venture capital between 1970 and 2009, created 10 million new jobs and in 2009 employed 10% of the US private sector workforce. Thus, successful participants in the global economy based on knowledge have already formed and are consistently implementing the concept of national innovation systems.

Considered in the previous paragraph, the main trends in the formation of NIS in developed countries provide guidelines for creating an effectively operating similar system in Russia. At present, Russia is implementing a national program for the transition from a resource-based to an innovative model of economic growth. However, the transfer of the national economy to a more efficient model of diversified development faces serious limitations. The formation of modern forms and mechanisms for supporting the national innovation system, mechanisms for stimulating the innovative activity of business has not acquired conceptual completeness. Support for a system of long-term technological priorities, prospects for innovative development, considered taking into account the main global trends and challenges that form external conditions and restrictions for the transition from an export-raw material to an innovative model of economic growth, long-term technological priorities, is inertial. Factors hindering innovative development are any restrictive measures aimed at limiting financial and commodity exchange (protectionism, a high level of monopolization, the presence of powerful cartels, excessive "overregulation" of economic systems). They increase the risks of innovation activity, hold back investment flows, pushing companies to move from long-term strategies to short-term mobilization behavior.

The disadvantages of the Russian innovation system are: the relatively low share of expenditures on innovation development in GDP, the predominance of budget financing of innovation programs and the low share of business in financing scientific activities and technology development, the isolation of the innovation system from market needs. One of the main reasons for the low share of business in national innovation projects is the dominance of low-tech extractive industries in the structure of the Russian economy. An extremely weak point in technological development is a limited number of innovatively active companies, whose share in the economy is 9-11% compared to 20-245 for developed countries.

Russia maintains a low level of innovation activity. Under the influence of a whole range of objective reasons, companies have noticeably decreased their interest in the intellectual component of the innovation process (research and development, the acquisition of new technologies, rights to patents, patent licenses, etc.). In 2009, large and medium-sized enterprises produced innovative products worth 714.0 billion rubles, and their share in the total volume of goods, works, and services was only 5.5%. Passivity in the innovation sphere is exacerbated, apparently, by the low return on the implementation of technological innovations. Although the absolute volume of innovative products is constantly increasing (by 49% in 1995-2009), the costs of innovation are growing even faster (twice over the same period). In the world market of high technologies, the share of Russia is 0.5%, and the USA - 40%. In industry, the share of firms introducing new products into technological processes in 2008 was 13%; this is lower than in the Netherlands (62%) and Austria (67%). In terms of absolute export volumes of high-tech products, Russia is 13 times behind Malaysia, 27 times behind Germany, 38 times behind Japan, and 70 times behind the USA.

Large projects covering the full cycle of work (conducting specialized research and development, technological preparation of production, production of fundamentally new products, etc.) are becoming more and more expensive and inaccessible for domestic enterprises. The main constraining factors of the innovative development of the enterprise are, first of all, the lack of own financial resources and the high cost of innovations. Russian entrepreneurs are currently investing in scientific activity and technology development at significantly less cost than their competitors in developed and many developing countries.

Improving the system of government incentives that push businesses towards a new growth strategy will fundamentally change the interest of entrepreneurs in implementing medium- and long-term strategies to increase efficiency and competitiveness.

An analysis of the content of the domestic innovation policy and the implemented measures shows that most of them include too much state support in the form of subsidies or government orders. Stimulation of innovations and development of innovation infrastructure do not have a clear conceptual framework. Stagnation in the innovation sphere is associated with a lack of motivation among firms and corporations to promote innovations in the real sector of the economy and insufficient attention from the state.

In 2007–2008 seven special development institutions were created as state corporations (including those in high-tech sectors). State corporations aim to support and develop those sectors of the economy where businesses in the short and medium term do not see attractiveness for investing their funds and where the country's rating is gradually declining (shipbuilding, aircraft manufacturing). Corporations whose activities are aimed at modernizing the country's economy - Rosnanotech, Rostekhnologii, Rosatom, etc., as well as a number of large joint-stock companies - United Aircraft Corporation and United Shipbuilding Corporation - were created by the state and operate in market conditions and market principles. These structures, in which the state has pooled large assets for their effective development, are at the initial stage of their formation, and it will be possible to speak about the real results of their activities only in three to five years. However, so far they do not provide a reversal of negative trends in economic development. It is also important to take into account the danger of monopolization by corporations of certain areas and segments of activity, which can block the already extremely weak competition in the domestic market and become a serious obstacle to achieving the country's strategic development goals.

The next stage of the scientific and technological revolution is directly related to the development of nanotechnologies. Russia, due to a long and deep crisis in the economy and the scientific and technological complex, entered the world race in the field of nanotechnology with some delay. And as a result, a full-fledged domestic market for nanoindustry products has not yet formed. However, the presence in Russia of a powerful scientific potential, highly qualified world-class personnel, unique scientific facilities still provide it with real chances to take its rightful place in the global technological competition.

Fundamental and applied research in the field of nanotechnologies have a solid foundation, but the share of nanotechnological innovative products produced is negligible - 8 billion rubles. in year. In scientific and technological areas - the development of new structural materials, catalysts and catalytic membranes; the creation of biochips for express analysis and diagnosis of dangerous infections and diseases, LEDs and new light sources based on them, technological and diagnostic equipment - Russia occupies a leading position.

The goals and objectives of the national innovation policy of Russia are implemented through its mechanisms and include:

- state financial assistance to enterprises through the provision of grants, loans, subsidies for the development of innovative products, technologies, services;

– financing of programs or projects designed to enhance cooperation and interaction between participants in the innovation process and, consequently, to improve the functioning of the NIS as a whole;

- measures aimed at improving access to, dissemination or deepening of knowledge about specific aspects of the NIS (development of sectoral, sectoral, regional strategies, foresights, dissemination, replication of the experience of the best innovative enterprises;

– financing of the innovation infrastructure and its connecting links – innovation centers, business incubators, technology transfer centers.

A wide range of tools used determines the paradigm of Russia's modern innovation policy. Among its features we note:

- orientation towards a system of long-term technological priorities related to sustainable development, increasing the competitiveness of the national economy;

- formation of an optimal ratio of budget subsidies and private incentives for research, development, and innovation;

- growing interest in the sector of knowledge-intensive and innovative services (organizational, managerial, marketing, consumer), largely due to the recognition of the critical importance of information and communication technologies.

So, the problem of overcoming technological backwardness in the current socio-economic conditions, taking into account the state of the world economy, requires the formation, based on the concentration of resources, of increasing innovation and investment activity, strengthening the impact of the state on economic dynamics while ensuring a new quality of its development.

The strategic task of the state innovation policy of Russia in the context of global technological competition is to assess global trends, challenges and risks that form the external conditions and restrictions for the transition from the export of raw materials to the innovative model of economic growth.

Summing up the course work, it is necessary to draw the following conclusions. A structural shift is understood as any significant change in the internal structure of the system, the relationships between its elements, the laws of these relationships, leading to a change in the basic (integral) system qualities.

Thus, structural shifts in the economy are manifested in the form of changes in the position of elements, shares, proportions and quantitative characteristics of the economic system. The content of structural shifts is a change in interstructural and intersystem relations, as well as in the main characteristics (system qualities) of the economic system. Any shift in the economic structure is based on a shift from the system of interests and needs of an economic entity or their groups (state, corporations, enterprises or an individual), and the shifts themselves appear in the form of macro, meso, micro and nanoshifts, respectively.

Like any economic mechanism, the mechanism of structural shifts consists of subjects, objects and their interaction. The subjects of structural shifts are any business entities, ranging from an individual to the state; objects, along with the already named business entities, their interests and needs, are various economic proportions, qualitative and quantitative characteristics and indicators (for example, living standards, GNP, etc.) at the macro, meso, micro and nano levels. The mechanism of structural shifts covers the main elements of the productive forces and production relations.

The main contradiction of the mechanism of structural shifts is the contradiction between the structure of production (distribution, exchange and consumption) and the structure of public and personal interests and needs.

In the structural changes that are currently taking place in the Russian economy, it is necessary to note the deepening of the deformation of the reproductive structure, the excessive swelling of the fuel and raw materials sector (primary and intermediate products) to the detriment of the consumer and innovation and investment sectors.

The process of changes in the cost structure of reproduction continues as a result of the multiply accelerated processes of redistribution, spurred on by inflation and uneven price races. The share of wages and depreciation decreased, and unnaturally (in the context of a decline in production and a drop in its efficiency), the share of profits and taxes increased.

The Russian economy is still quite disproportionate and unstable. Therefore, it needs all possible means of foreign trade regulation, including protective (protectionist) measures. But it would be wrong to immediately apply the tools of a tough protectionist policy, because this is fraught with a deterioration in relations with countries that are consumers of Russian export products and its creditors, an increase in domestic prices and quite likely budget losses, and it does not agree well with the course towards the formation of an open market economy and integration of Russia into the world economic system.

In the specific conditions of modern Russia, the "opening" of the national economy should be gradual, based on a well-thought-out structural policy, with a reasonable combination of liberalization and protectionism measures.

1. Analysis of the innovation policy of Russia and Ukraine according to the EU methodology / Ed. ed. N. Ivanova. M.: IMEMO RAN, 2008. - 305p.

2. Innovative economy of Russia: Theoretical and methodological foundations and strategic priorities / Novitsky N.A. - M.: LIBROKOM, 2009. - 328s.

3. Innovative development: economics, intellectual resources, knowledge management / Ed. B.Z. Milner. M.: INFRA-M, 2009. - 627p.

4. Innovative development of the Russian economy. M.: Maks Press, 2008. S. 203.

5. Burdeychik S.A. The impact of institutional changes on structural shifts in the economy// The Economist, 2009, No. 5

6. Kuznets S. Modern economic growth: research results and reflections: Nobel lecture // Nobel laureates in economics: a view from Russia. - St. Petersburg: Humanistics, 2003. - P.104.

7. Lyubimtseva S.A. Innovative transformation of the economic system // The Economist. 2008. No. 9. S. 29-35.

8. Makarov V.L., Kleiner G.B. Microeconomics of knowledge. M.: Economics, 2007. - 199p.

9. Ovsienko Yu.V. Institutional shifts in Russia, their social and economic consequences // Economics and Mathematical Methods. 2008. - S. 25.

10. Polterovich V. Modernization strategies, institutions and coalitions // Questions of Economics. 2008. No. 4. P. 4.

11. Smetanov A.Yu. Analysis of the features of innovative development of military-industrial complex enterprises in an open market // Integral. 2008. No. 2. S. 12-15.

12. Yakovets Yu.V. Epochal innovations of the XXI century. M.: Economics, 2004. - S. 48-50.

Ovsienko Yu.V. Institutional shifts in Russia, their social and economic consequences // Economics and Mathematical Methods. 2008. - S. 25.

Burdeychik S.A. Influence of institutional changes on structural shifts in the economy// Zh. The Economist, 2009, No. 5.

Lyubimtseva S.A. Innovative transformation of the economic system // The Economist. 2008. No. 9. S. 29.

Yakovets Yu.V. Epochal innovations of the XXI century. M.: Economics, 2004. S. 48.

Innovative Development: Economics, Intellectual Resources, Knowledge Management / Ed. B.Z. Milner. M.: INFRA-M, 2009. S. 174.

Innovative development of the Russian economy. M.: Maks Press, 2008. S. 203.

Innovative Development: Economics, Intellectual Resources, Knowledge Management / Ed. B.Z. Milner. M.: INFRA-M, 2009. S. 203.

Makarov V.L., Kleiner G.B. Microeconomics of knowledge. M.: Economics, 2007. S. 165.

Analysis of the innovation policy of Russia and Ukraine according to the EU methodology / Ed. ed. N. Ivanova. M.: IMEMO RAN, 2008. P. 182.

Smetanov A.Yu. Analysis of the features of innovative development of military-industrial complex enterprises in an open market // Integral. 2008. No. 2. S. 12.

Polterovich V. Modernization strategies, institutions and coalitions // Questions of Economics. 2008. No. 4. P. 4.