State industrial policy is one of the most debated concepts in the domestic economic literature. Discussions are being held both about the content of the concept of industrial policy and about the directions of implementation of industrial policy in Russia.

The term “industrial policy” entered Russian economic literature in the early 1990s and was borrowed from Western economic literature, the original name being “industrial policy”. The borrowing of the concept of industrial policy by disparate specialists has led to the emergence of different interpretations of the content of industrial policy in the domestic literature.

In domestic literature, along with the term “industrial policy”, the term “structural policy” is also used, left over from the times of the state planning concept; often these two terms are given a synonymous meaning. In Western literature, structural policy refers to institutional transformations, such as privatization, monopoly reform, promoting the development of small and medium-sized businesses, etc.

The evolution of views and the need for a unified terminology led to the following interpretation of industrial policy.

Industrial policy is defined as a set of government actions aimed at purposefully changing the structure of the economy by creating more favorable conditions for the development of certain (priority) sectors and industries.

Another definition of industrial policy was given by L.I. Abalkin.

Industrial policy is a system of measures aimed at progressive changes in the structure of industrial production in accordance with selected national goals and priorities. The central issue and subject of industrial policy are inter-industry proportions and structural changes in industry, and not issues of industrial development in general and, say, intra-industry competition.

Finally, the definition of industrial policy given by specialists from the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of the Russian Federation, industrial policy is a set of measures carried out by the state in order to increase the efficiency and competitiveness of domestic industry and the formation of its modern structure that contributes to the achievement of these goals. Industrial policy is a necessary complement to structural policies aimed at increasing social welfare. When developing industrial policy, it is important to determine goals and priorities established on the basis of strategic guidelines for the production and commercial activities of economic entities and the social activities of the state.

As follows from these definitions, the implementation of industrial policy presupposes the presence of clear government priorities in relation to sectors of the national economy. The goal of industrial policy is to change the existing sectoral structure of the national economy, increasing the share of priority sectors in the created national product.

Industrial policy pursues other goals than sectoral ones. If industrial policy pursues the goal of increasing the national economic efficiency of the industry and is implemented primarily through short-term measures, then industrial policy pursues the goal of increasing the efficiency of the national economy as a whole, eliminating intersectoral problems and ensuring progressive changes in the structure of production of the social product, which requires a long-term decision-making horizon.

Among the main instruments of the state’s industrial policy are the following:

1) budget policy instruments: provision of various kinds of subsidies and loans from the state budget, implementation of state investment policy in certain sectors of the economy with the aim of developing the production base, infrastructure facilities, forming growth poles, etc.

2) tax policy instruments: the introduction of different tax regimes depending on the industry, the provision of tax benefits in priority industries, an accelerated depreciation procedure. The application of different tax regimes in different industries and regions can have a significant stimulating function, changing costs and sectoral profitability of production, which, in turn, affects the sectoral structure of investment in fixed capital, redirecting investments to priority sectors of the national economy and increasing their competitiveness.

3) monetary policy instruments aimed at regulating the level of monetization of the economy, the volume of savings and lending in the national economy, as well as the exchange rate of the national currency: discount rate, open market operations, mandatory reserve ratio.

4) instruments of institutional policy: improvement of property relations; stimulating the transition of enterprises to more efficient forms of business organization; change of property relations - privatization and nationalization; licensing; legislative formation and support of new market institutions, market infrastructure.

5) instruments of foreign economic policy: export promotion (export loans and guarantees, customs and tax benefits, subsidies), import or export restrictions (customs tariffs, quotas, anti-dumping investigations, establishment of technological and environmental regulations and standards), changes in trade duties, membership in international economic organizations and the conclusion of customs unions.

6) investment policy instruments: creating a favorable investment climate and promoting investment in those sectors whose development is a priority for the state;

7) training and retraining of specialists for priority sectors.

Thus, the implementation of industrial policy involves significant government intervention in the functioning of the economic system. This raises the question of the justification of its implementation, especially within the framework of the currently dominant liberal market economic concept (neoclassical theory) and the assessment of its effectiveness.

Within the framework of neoclassical theory, industrial policy is viewed as unlawful government intervention in the economy, distorting the operation of market mechanisms and preventing the effective (optimal) distribution of resources. According to this point of view, the state is unable to determine the true points of growth, so any state priorities in relation to sectors and industries will lead to a decrease in overall economic efficiency.

In accordance with the liberal market concept, the following main arguments can be made against the implementation of industrial policy.

1. Industrial policy distorts market signals and, accordingly, leads to ineffective decisions by economic entities at the micro level, which leads to the emergence of more significant imbalances.

2. The possibility of setting government priorities for the development of individual industries can lead to lobbying and corruption, as a result of which ineffective industries receive priorities.

3. The state cannot accurately determine the priorities of industrial policy in the long term. The experience of most countries shows the ineffectiveness of industrial policy instruments in the long term.

4. The structure of the modern economy, characterized by the predominance of large diversified companies, reduces the ability to regulate individual industries and sectors.

The question arises as to what justifies government intervention in the natural development of the national economy.

The arguments in favor of industrial policy are:

1. The market is efficient only with relatively small deviations from the optimum. Eliminating large structural imbalances requires government intervention.

2. When making decisions, market actors are usually guided by short-term goals, which can lead to deviation from the long-term optimum.

3. The operation of the market mechanism can lead to high social and political costs for society.

4. Emerging industries during their formation period may turn out to be uncompetitive due to unfavorable initial conditions.

Thus, the question arises of assessing the effectiveness of industrial policy. Under what conditions will it contribute to improving social welfare, and under what conditions will it not?

The following main goals of industrial policy can be cited:

1) ensuring national security and reducing dependence on external factors;

2) solving social problems and ensuring employment;

3) ensuring competitive advantages of individual industries;

4) stimulating investment activity in target industries by providing favorable operating conditions, especially in industries that have a large indirect effect on the development of the national economy; etc.

Industrial policy, as a rule, involves creating more favorable conditions for the development of priority sectors and curbing growth in some other sectors of the national economy.

Consequently, as a criterion for assessing the effectiveness of industrial policy, one can use the net gain of the national economy from accelerating the rate of development of some industries and slowing down the rate of development of others. However, there are serious methodological difficulties associated with measuring this indicator.

Thus, we can conclude that the implementation of industrial policy is justified in conditions of a serious structural imbalance in the economy, which cannot be eliminated only under the influence of the market mechanism, which necessitates government intervention.

The following levels of industrial policy can be distinguished:

1. Level of state industrial policy. At this level, the formation and implementation of measures for macrostructural transformations, the creation of favorable conditions for such transformations and the adaptation or neutralization of their adverse consequences takes place.

2. The industry (sector) level of industrial policy determines the specific goals and activities of the state in relation to a particular industry in a broad or narrow sense.

3. The regional level of industrial policy determines the goals and activities of the state in relation to the industrial development of individual regions.

Due to the fact that industrial policy affects the functioning of the entire national economy, in order to make decisions regarding the choice of goals and priorities of industrial policy, a thorough analysis of the state of the national economy and the determination of a long-term strategy for the socio-economic development of the state is necessary. In this regard, in the economic literature it is customary to distinguish the following three types of industrial policy:

1) internally oriented (import substitution);

2) export-oriented;

3) innovation-oriented (as a special case, resource-saving).

Internally oriented industrial policy

The import substitution model is based on the strategy of meeting domestic demand through the development of national production. An important component of the import substitution policy is the protectionist policy on the part of the state, maintaining a low exchange rate of the national currency and stimulating the production of products that replace imported analogues.

The main positive results of the application of internally oriented industrial policy are:

Improving the structure of the balance of payments;

Ensuring employment and, as a consequence, growth in domestic effective demand;

Reducing the economy’s dependence on the outside world;

Development of capital-creating industries in connection with the growing demand for buildings, structures, machinery and equipment.

Negative results of the implementation of import substitution may be associated with the following processes:

The weakening of international competition in the country’s domestic market and, as a consequence, the technological lag of the national economy from developed countries;

Creating overly favorable conditions for domestic producers, which, in turn, can lead to a weakening of their competitiveness;

Ineffective micromanagement;

Saturation of the domestic market with lower-quality domestic products, due to protectionist government measures that limit access to the market for high-quality imported products.

Examples of the implementation of domestically oriented industrial policy (import substitution) are India (1960-1980s), France (1950-1970s), Japan (after the Second World War) and China (1970-1980s). ), USSR, DPRK.

Export-oriented industrial policy

The main objective of an export-oriented industrial policy is to promote the development of export industries whose products are competitive in the international market. Among the tools used by the state in implementing this type of industrial policy are:

Establishing tax and customs benefits for exporting enterprises, providing them with preferential loans;

Carrying out a policy of a weak exchange rate of the national currency;

Measures to create favorable conditions for the development of export-oriented and related industries;

Development of export infrastructure;

Simplification of the customs regime.

The main advantages of the export-oriented model are:

Strengthening the integration ties of the national economy with the world economy and, accordingly, access to technologies and resources;

The development of competitive industries, which provides a multiplier effect for the development of the national economy as a whole, both through the chain of intersectoral connections and through the growth of effective demand from the population employed in these industries;

Inflow of foreign exchange resources into the country due to growth in exports;

Attracting additional investments, including foreign ones.

The most successful examples of the implementation of an export-oriented development model are South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong (1960-1980s), Chile, China (1980-1990s) and India (1990s), in a broad understanding of industrial policy (as a structural policy), this includes US agricultural policy.

At the same time, there are also unsuccessful attempts to implement a similar model of industrial policy. First of all, these are Mexico, Venezuela and a number of other Latin American countries (1980s).

Despite the significant benefits that society can receive from the implementation of an export-oriented industrial policy, under some conditions it can lead to negative consequences.

For example, in the case when export-oriented growth is realized at the expense of the raw materials sector of the national economy, which may be dictated, for example, by political or financial reasons, the following negative processes may occur:

Deepening the resource orientation of the economy;

Increased corruption in government bodies responsible for regulating foreign trade operations;

The outflow of labor and financial resources from the manufacturing industry to the mining industry, which negatively affects the long-term competitiveness of the national economy (for example, Venezuela);

Decline in innovation activity due to the weakening of the manufacturing industry (“Dutch disease”);

Stagnation in the manufacturing industry leads to the need to import new equipment and other high-tech products from abroad, making the country dependent on foreign manufacturers (similar processes are currently occurring in Russia).

It should be noted that the export of raw materials can serve as a source of economic growth only in the short term. The long-term prospects for the development of the national economy with an export-oriented orientation are doubtful.

However, the negative consequences of implementing an export-oriented model arise not only in the case of a focus on the export of raw materials; an example is Mexico, where the orientation of the country’s economy on the export of highly processed products implied the use of a significant share of imported components in its production, which made the economy of this country dependent on external suppliers. When the cost of labor in Mexico increased, products assembled in Mexico were no longer competitive in the world market.

Practice shows that failures in the implementation of export-oriented industrial policy were mainly associated with a decrease in the diversification of the national economy and the strengthening of the role of industries dependent on world market conditions, which, when conditions worsened on the world market for exported products, led to a crisis.

When choosing this type of industrial policy, it is necessary to take into account the scale of the country, the level of scientific and technological development, and the provision of production resources. In this regard, two types of export orientation arise.

The first type is due to the small size of the national economy and the relatively simple structure of the economy, which leads to the relative disadvantage of developing import substitution due to limited domestic demand. An example is Singapore.

The second type is caused by the country having a significant competitive advantage over other countries. An example is the People's Republic of China, which has a huge reserve of cheap labor, which, in the conditions of a saturated domestic market, forces it to look for new markets abroad. At the same time, predominantly extensive methods of expanding production significantly reduce the possibilities for the development of knowledge-intensive production.

So, the main advantages of an export-oriented industrial policy are international cooperation, improving the competitiveness of national industry, and deepening integration into the international division of labor. However, one should be wary of a decrease in export diversification, which increases the dependence of the national economy on external conditions.

Innovation-oriented industrial policy

This type of industrial policy is fundamentally different from those described above. The main task in implementing this policy is to intensify innovation activities and introduce new technologies at domestic enterprises.

Considering that innovative activity has a significant lag between investing in an innovative project and its payback (payback period) and a high risk of non-return on investments, investment decisions that are beneficial from the point of view of society at the level of business entities may not always be made, since short-term ones predominate in their behavior goals.

Numerous researchers note that the higher the level of competition (the lower the level of concentration) in the industry, the less the tendency of firms to invest in innovative development, and the main source of financing innovative activities is the economic profit received by firms with monopoly power in the market. Therefore, the state should stimulate this type of activity and direct it in the right direction, especially in the case of industries with a low level of concentration.

The positive aspects of using an innovative type of development are:

Acceleration of scientific and technological progress;

Increasing the competitiveness of products in the international and domestic markets;

Increasing demand for highly qualified labor, which encourages the population to receive quality education;

Stability of the balance of payments and the exchange rate of the national currency, ensured by the high competitiveness of products.

Intensive development of capital-creating industries, mainly mechanical engineering, as well as industries with a high degree of processing of products, which are the basis for the economy of any industrialized country.

Despite its great attractiveness, innovation-oriented industrial policy has not been used so often in world practice, this is due to a number of difficulties associated with its implementation:

1) the need to attract significant investments in the development of R&D infrastructure and renewal of fixed production assets of industry, which, as a rule, requires the attraction of significant external borrowings;

2) the financial vulnerability of national enterprises at the initial stage leads to the need to use protectionist measures and non-market methods of stimulating R&D, which often meets resistance at the state level;

3) national educational and professional institutions, as a rule, are unable to satisfy the growing need for highly qualified labor, therefore the implementation of this type of development must be accompanied by the implementation of various programs to increase the educational level of the population, as well as increase the quality of education.

Given the high capital intensity of the innovation model, it tends to be applied selectively in the most competitive industries. However, the overall effect of using this model applies to all sectors of the national economy.

Examples of the implementation of the innovative development model include countries such as Japan (1970-1990s), South Korea (1980-1990s), the USA, and countries of the European Union.

Note that the application of one or another type of industrial policy leads to the redistribution of production factors into priority sectors of the economy, which reduces the opportunities for the development of other sectors. For this reason, examples of the application of mixed types of industrial policies are very rare.

Industrial policy has a dynamic aspect, and after achieving the goals it sets, its priorities must be adjusted in accordance with the changed economic conditions and the existing structure of the economy. For this reason, almost every developed country implemented all three identified types of industrial policy in one form or another.

Based on an analysis of global experience in carrying out structural reforms, we can identify the following optimal strategy for implementing industrial policy for society.

Therefore, it is necessary to take into account the dynamic nature of industrial policy - over time, the need to stimulate the development of selected industries disappears, and the need to stimulate other industries arises.

Depending on the chosen industrial policy strategy, the state's sectoral policy in each specific industry should be determined.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

• Introduction
• conclusions
• Conclusion
• List of sources used

Introduction

The topic of the test is "Industrial Policy" in the discipline "Economic Theory".

At the time of the collapse of the USSR and the formation of Ukraine as an independent state, the industrial sector occupied a leading position in its economy. 7.8 million people were employed in industry. - more; than in any other type of economic activity. In 1991, the output of state industrial enterprises located on the territory of Ukraine amounted to more than 50% of the total output of goods and services by economic sector and more than 40% of GVA.

At that time, Ukrainian industry was part of the single national economic complex of the USSR, which developed on a planned basis. Since, after the collapse of the USSR, Ukraine set a course for the transition from a planned economy to a market economy, industry was forced to go through a period of institutional and economic transformations, the main elements of which were the privatization of state property, liberalization of prices for goods and services, and the elimination of the state monopoly on foreign trade.

The expected results of such transformations were bringing the volumes and structure of industrial production in line with effective demand in the domestic and foreign markets, restructuring and modernization of the production apparatus, updating production technologies, increasing labor productivity and reducing the anthropogenic load on the environment. It was natural to expect that, in connection with large-scale reforms, the size of the industrial sector of the economy would shrink, but over time it would become more efficient and competitive, better meeting the new requirements for the economic security of the state.

industrial policy neoclassical evolutionary

In order to support and stimulate the development of the industry in the difficult conditions of market transformations, the Ukrainian state has developed and implemented a number of measures in the field of industrial policy. In 1996, the Concept of State Industrial Policy was adopted (Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine dated February 29, 1996 No. 272). The next Concept of Industrial Policy appeared in 2003 (Decree of the President of Ukraine dated February 12, 2003 No. 102). Then the State Industrial Development Program for 2003-2011 was adopted (Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine dated July 28, 2003 No. 1174). In addition, the regulation of the development of Ukrainian industry in a market economy (sometimes contradictory) was carried out by methods of fiscal and monetary policy.

Industrial policy: theoretical aspect.

Ultimately, over the past 20 years, market adaptation has indeed occurred, and now the Ukrainian industry, represented mainly by enterprises of non-state ownership, produces products that are in demand in the domestic and foreign markets.

However, firstly, in form the transformation processes resembled more a spontaneous collapse (especially in the first half of the 90s) (Fig.) than targeted learning and gradual adaptation to changing environmental conditions, and therefore were accompanied by serious social costs: it is enough to note that the number of people employed in industry decreased from 7.8 million people. in 1991 to 3.5 million people. in 2009, that is, more than 2 times.

Secondly, there was no mass restructuring and modernization of the production apparatus, or updating of production technologies. Market adaptation was carried out mainly not through the creation of new, high-tech industries, but through the extinction of individual enterprises and even entire industries (in light industry), the products of which were not in demand or turned out to be uncompetitive. As for enterprises and industries that managed to “survive” (in the mining industry, ferrous metallurgy, electric power industry, gas industry, chemistry and petrochemistry, mechanical engineering), many of them still use the equipment and technologies they inherited from the former USSR, which determine the level of labor productivity and technogenic load on the natural environment.

Thirdly, from the standpoint of the economic component of national security, the results of market adaptation of Ukrainian industry to new economic conditions also cannot be considered satisfactory. It turned out to be vulnerable to economic shocks, unable to maintain a trajectory of sustainable functioning in a rapidly changing external environment. This was especially evident during the global financial and economic crisis, in 2009, when industrial production fell by more than 20%, which brought Ukraine to the brink of default.

Thus, in general, the unsatisfactory results of the development of Ukrainian industry over the reviewed 20-year period indicate that serious changes are needed in the field of industrial policy: either it needs to be significantly rebuilt, or due to inefficiency it should be abandoned altogether.

But before raising the question in such a practical plane, it is advisable to turn to the theoretical aspect of the problem, to once again weigh the pros and cons of industrial policy in the light of radically changed economic conditions both within the country and abroad. To do this, the provisions of neoclassical, institutional and evolutionary economic theories will be sequentially considered. Let's start the study by establishing the boundaries of its subject area - the definition of the concept of "industrial policy".

1. What is industrial policy?

As the name suggests, industrial policy is some of the actions of the government (central and (or) local) in the industrial sector. In other words, this is a certain type of economic policy, along with such widely recognized types as stabilization, financial, trade, etc. However, in contrast to these types, which are of a general economic nature, industrial policy “in the strict sense is sectoral ( sectoral) politics; it is intended to promote industries where intervention must take place for reasons of national independence, technological autonomy, failure of private initiative, decline of traditional activities, geographical or political balance."

Many other experts agree that industrial policy is of an industrial (sectoral) nature. "Industrial policy is basically any type of selective intervention or government policy aimed at changing the sectoral structure of production towards industries that are expected to offer better prospects for economic growth than in the absence of such intervention, that is, under conditions of market equilibrium ".

A change in the sectoral structure of industrial production is an element of structural transformation (restructuring) of the economy as a whole. Therefore, it can be defined that industrial policy is “a variety of government measures designed to manage and control the processes of structural transformation of the economy.” Moreover, the emphasis is placed specifically on industry, since “the process of industrialization is important for transforming the economy as a whole, and it is possible to influence this process in such a way as to control the entire mechanism of structural changes.”

D. Rodrik takes a slightly different position: “There is no evidence that the types of market failures that call for industrial policy occur primarily in industry ( industry)". Therefore, for lack of a more suitable name, he designates the term "industrial policy" for all actions aimed at economic restructuring in favor of more dynamic activities in general - "whether they relate to industry or production directly" - and gives examples such policies (including from agriculture and the service sector).

However, such an expanded interpretation leads away from the traditional understanding of industrial policy, which, in turn, makes it difficult to study this phenomenon from a historical perspective. Therefore, J. Forman-Peck, who performed a retrospective analysis of European industrial policy in the 20th century, classifies only manufacturing ( manufacturing) and infrastructure ( infrastructure) industries ( industries). And although he believes that in principle the term " industry" can be extended to any source of employment - be it mining, agriculture or services (assuming that the classification of jobs is somewhat arbitrary), yet " government policies in relation to agriculture and services in general differed from those for in relation to industry, more strictly defined, and therefore the field of research must be limited so that it can be managed."

Turning to the historical aspects of the problem allows us to identify a certain shift in its research paradigm. If before the 80s of the XX century. industrial policy was usually understood as actions of direct government intervention in the economy and directive control of the government over the production apparatus, then “nowadays, the term, on the contrary, denotes a variety of policies that are implemented by different institutional actors in order to stimulate the creation of firms, in favor of their concentration, promoting innovation and competitive development in the context of an open economy. New industrial policy is therefore fundamentally a policy of industrial development, which implicitly views industry as an organization, and the strategic management of human competencies and technical capabilities."

In modern terminology, the traditional sectoral type of industrial policy, which influences the relative importance of individual industries and enterprises, is called “vertical policy,” and its new functional type is called “horizontal policy.” The latter includes actions common to a large number of industries and enterprises in the field of regulatory support for economic activity, protection of property rights, elimination of administrative barriers, promotion of innovation, etc. The European Commission (the highest executive body of the EU) focuses on the horizontal type of industrial policy. which proposes measures to ensure the competitiveness of the European manufacturing industry ( manufacturing industry) on the basis that most innovations take place in this industry.

Since both vertical and horizontal types of industrial policy include a wide range of actions that can influence a wide variety of areas of economic activity, the question arises of their limitation from the standpoint of the object of policy. Therefore, J. Pelkmans from the whole range of actions influencing industry ( industry), identifies those that, in his opinion, should not be classified as industrial policy: these are not policies for industry specifically (macroeconomic regulation, income redistribution, wage policy, etc.), as well as policies that directly affect industry, but are intended not only for it (privatization, regional development, price control, etc.). Obviously, such a division cannot be considered strict, because actions intended not only for industry are difficult to separate from the sphere of industrial policy itself.

There is similar uncertainty about the goals of industrial policy: “In most cases, industrial policy has multiple goals—increasing short-term employment, increasing output, improving income distribution, and increasing technological capacity. It often also includes (rightly or wrongly) the non-economic goals of national pride and prestige, as well as a perceived need to promote “strategic” domestic industries.” Also mentioned above were such goals as structural transformation of the economy, stimulating the creation of firms, promoting innovation, ensuring competitiveness, etc. All this taken together gives grounds to assert that, “unlike most other areas of economic policy, industrial policy does not have a clearly defined and a generally accepted set of goals to be achieved."

So, it is impossible to strictly delineate the boundaries of the subject area of ​​research - to determine industrial policy - because there is no clarity about:

a) what exactly is the object of this policy (what should be understood by industry as an object of policy, why and how it should be separated from other sources of employment);

b) what actions relate to the content of industrial policy (include here system-wide actions in the economy, including industry, or actions in relation only to industry, which may have system-wide effects);

c) what goals does industrial policy pursue, what exactly should be the final desired result of its implementation.

This conclusion does not seem to be unexpected or original: "The expression 'industrial policy' means different things to different people," so that "any six economists chosen at random would undoubtedly produce at least a dozen different opinions on the subject." And again: “No taxonomy can fully cover the range of ideas about industrial policy that can be found in the literature” 25. "Industrial policy, despite being labeled as a 'policy', lacks the most characteristic features of the latter."

But the impossibility of strictly delineating the subject area of ​​research and giving a universal definition of industrial policy does not mean that the search for its particular (for special purposes) definitions does not make sense. In principle, this is a typical task of assigning heterogeneous elements to a certain set, which plays an important role in human understanding (for example, in biology, computer science, etc.). We can say that industrial policy is (in mathematical terminology) a fuzzy set of elements, characterized by the fact that the membership function can take any values ​​in the interval, and not just the values ​​0 or 1.

In order to establish which elements should be included in the “fuzzy set” of industrial policy and which should not, it is important to determine the purpose for which such a restriction is carried out. In this work, this is a study of the theory of the issue. In its full form, it is not a holistic and consistent logical system, but a conceptual aggregate or “population” of concepts 29 that develop in competition for the best explanation of the same sphere of empirical phenomena (overlapping spheres of phenomena) and prediction of possible scenarios for the development of events. In turn, the development of such a conceptual aggregate has direct and inverse connections with the evolution of the “population” of practices, in this case, the practices of industrial policy.

Guided by these considerations, in order to solve the problem, from the many elements of industrial policy, the composition of which has changed over time and space, it is necessary to single out a “solid disciplinary core” that preserves the historical continuity of the subject area of ​​research to which scientists appeal (or appealed). However, the problem is that proponents of individual economic theories not only use dissimilar methods of explanation and prediction, but also often turn to the study of different aspects of empirical phenomena, so the composition and structure of the fuzzy set of industrial policy in the view of, for example, a neoclassical adherent may differ significantly from its composition and structure in the view of an adherent of institutionalism or evolutionism.

Therefore, further, when analyzing the provisions of scientific theories in the field of industrial policy, we will proceed from such a broad understanding of its content that would make it possible to consider the arguments of representatives of different points of view. And so that the scope of this analysis is not limitless, it is proposed to use as a limiter an analogue of the philosophical principle of intentionalism, according to which every action should be assessed from the point of view of its goal. The idea is to consider the theoretical foundations of only those actions that have intention (intention) influence industry - production (extraction, movement, manufacturing, processing) of material goods. This means that both “vertical policy” (in the part that aims to change the relative importance of industry as a whole and (or) its individual branches) and “horizontal policy” (in the part that concerns institutions innovations, etc. in industry).

2. Neoclassical foundations of industrial policy

Under conventional neoclassical assumptions, free competition among rational self-interested economic agents who are fully informed and have no market power results in a Pareto-efficient use of scarce resources. Therefore, grounds for government intervention in such a market mechanism arise if there are obstacles to free competition, known as market failures ( market failures). However, this intervention itself may also be associated with failures, but now by the state ( government failures). So the neoclassical arguments “for” industrial policy can be countered by equally compelling arguments “against” it.

Market failures. In the context of industrial policy, market failures that give rise to some form of government intervention typically include incomplete information, uncompetitive markets, and externalities.

Incomplete information. From the perspective of commodity producers, incomplete information may result in incorrect assessments of the profitability of individual commercial projects. The problem becomes more complex if it is proposed to produce a new product, the profitability of which has not yet been assessed by the market, and in the case of “tied” investments, when the uncertainty of investment in one type of activity (for example, ore beneficiation) gives rise to the uncertainty of investments in related other activities (for example , in the production of iron and steel). In turn, this leads to errors in assessing business prospects, and also reduces the potential level of business activity and investment in the economy. From the point of view of consumers, incomplete information about the quality of new goods forces them to be guided by average assessments of already known comparable goods. In this situation, there is a risk that enterprises offering products of above-average quality will be forced out of the market - what is called "adverse selection" ( adverse selection). In addition, corporations may deliberately create obstacles to the flow of information, deliberately disseminate incomplete and/or false information, and develop strategies that create market imperfections. Opposition from public authorities may be that they "develop strong competition policies to restore conditions of fair competition in a situation close to full information, and implement strategic industrial policies through which they play an active role in encouraging non-opportunistic behavior in industries of interest industry".

Non-competitive markets. Problems with competition in markets, which determine one or another degree of market power of economic entities, occur for a number of reasons. These may include control of rare resources, high fixed costs, and economies of scale. "In an industry characterized by high fixed costs (and hence economies of scale), the first firm in the market has a decisive first-mover advantage, which prevents other firms from entering that market. In essence, high fixed costs and economies of scale are barriers to entry, behind which the first mover captures rents to the detriment of potential competitors and consumers." If economies of scale are so great that they allow one enterprise to satisfy all market demand, then they speak of a natural monopoly - in the sense that barriers to entry are based on the laws of nature. In addition, as is known from the history of industrial policy, such barriers can be created artificially by the state: “The technologies of the 19th century were such that the infrastructure business restrained the growth of industrial enterprises, and the most expensive type of this business was railways. Railways and ordinary roads were necessary for this , to transport troops to the borders, and telecommunications to give them instructions for action.For reasons of national security, communications networks, the postal service and roads, as well as electrical telegraph and telephone, have traditionally been government monopolies, with the exception of when there was not enough money." Ways to solve the problem of non-competitive markets include price regulation (usually for products of natural monopolies), directive recreation of a competitive environment (through forced division of enterprises), facilitating entry into the market (by easing regulatory requirements, allocating subsidies for start-ups, etc.).

Externalities. A typical example of externalities in the context of industrial policy is knowledge. Once received, they can be absorbed by a large number of economic entities at relatively low costs (compared to the costs of their generation). Therefore, the social return from private investment in the creation of knowledge is greater than the individual level of profitability of the investor, and the total efforts of enterprises aimed at obtaining knowledge - performing R&D, opening new market opportunities (the so-called " self- discovery"), etc. - may be below the socially optimal level. A similar problem is associated with the costs of enterprises for training personnel, from which, in conditions of high mobility, other organizations also benefit. As in the case of other externalities, this weakens the incentives to provide training optimal level due to fears of economic losses.In addition, externalities arise in the process of coordination in time and space - when the creation of new products requires, in particular, large synchronous investments in related activities, the organization of which is not ensured by the market mechanism, geographic concentration of industry, conditioned by economies of scale and the presence within a given territory of rare or difficult to move factors of production.Externalities can be both positive (due to common infrastructure, concentration of skilled workers, diffusion of tacit knowledge) and negative (due to the accumulation of problem industries and environmental problems). The usual neoclassical recipes for solving externality problems are to provide subsidies (monetary, credit, tax, etc.) and government procurement to enhance positive externalities (for example, by stimulating R&D and spinoffs), as well as levying additional mandatory payments (Pigou taxes) and fines - to weaken negative externalities (for example, by increasing the costs of environmental polluters).

State failures. To correct market failures, government authorities intervene in economic processes (through taxes, subsidies, procurement, regulations, etc.), but the end result of their actions can also be failures - an even less efficient use of limited resources than without such intervention. In the context of industrial policy, state failures include imperfect information, self-interested behavior of officials, and conflicts between state industrial policy and other types of economic policy.

Imperfect information. The administrative bureaucracy that runs the state, in contrast to those economic entities that are directly involved in market transactions, is less aware of the prices, costs and benefits of a particular business, ways of its development, prospects for changing the range of products, reorienting sales markets, etc. : "The public sector is not omniscient and is typically even less informed than the private sector about the dislocations and nature of market failures blocking diversification. Government may not even know what it is that it does not know." The ignorance of government authorities is also associated with determining the list and selecting the best tools to achieve their goals. These can be a wide variety of means, both monetary (taxes, fines, subsidies) and non-monetary (intellectual property rights, government regulation of mergers and acquisitions of enterprises, tariffs, non-tariff measures, including quotas and licenses) types. The use of each of them is associated with the introduction of distortions into economic processes and difficult to predict long-term consequences - especially when not one instrument is used separately, but several instruments in combination.

Self-serving behavior officials persons. If, in accordance with the premise of rational selfishness of economic entities, officials pursue primarily personal (rather than public) interests, then the results of their actions may be inefficient allocation of resources (allocation of subsidies to the wrong industries that really need them, excessively low or high tariffs, etc.) and the distortion of competition introduced - regardless of how well they are aware of market problems. When regulatory bodies are created to implement industrial policy, the self-interested behavior of officials can lead to their "capture" ( regulatory capture), meaning that these bodies begin to perform the functions assigned to them in the interests of those firms whose activities they are intended to regulate. This provides some basis for the conclusion that "economic regulation is not generally carried out in the public interest, but is a process by which interest groups attempt to advance their (private) interests." As a rule, the “capture” of regulatory bodies is achieved through methods of corruption (through bribes or providing officials with various benefits, for example, in the form of guarantees of future employment, etc.), although other methods can also be used for this.

Conflicts industrial politicians states With others species economic politicians. In addition to industrial policy, there are at least two other types of economic policies related to government support for business: trade policy (aimed at protecting the interests of domestic producers and consumers) and competition policy (aimed at ensuring the effective functioning of the market coordination mechanism and combating anti-competitive business practices). They all have overlapping areas of application, and therefore their simultaneous use, which is common in practice, is fraught with contradictions and even conflicts. A typical example of such contradictions are those that arise during the implementation of industrial policy in the form of support for “young industries” ( infant industry). Such support, usually appealing to market failures (in the form of poorly functioning capital markets, information barriers to entry into the industry), involves the creation of special trade barriers and the adoption of measures to protect against competition, which is clearly contrary to modern competition and trade policies, often aimed at ensuring greater openness of national economies.

Thus, according to the above list of failures of the state, its actions aimed at improving the situation in industry do not guarantee success at all. The criteria for its assessment in neoclassical economic theory are considered to be the Pareto improvement criterion or a more operational criterion of potential Pareto improvement, involving a comparison of costs and results ( cost- benefit analysis). Therefore, in order to ensure the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the chosen industrial policy option, it is necessary to compare the associated costs and benefits. Obviously, this is very difficult to do in practice - due to the difficulty of both correctly measuring the benefits of government interventions aimed at correcting market failures and calculating the associated costs, taking into account the resulting side effects.

3. Institutional foundations of industrial policy

In institutional theory, in contrast to neoclassical theory, the emphasis in justifying industrial policy is shifted from the search for the optimal distribution of limited resources to the analysis of institutions (spontaneous and formal rules with enforcement mechanisms for their implementation) that contribute to or hinder the success of such policies, and the transaction costs that accompany relationships between economic entities. Therefore, for example, differences in the productivity of the economies of closely located countries (South and North Korea, the former West and East Germany, etc.), incomprehensible from the standpoint of neoclassics, can be easily explained by differences in the effectiveness of institutions.

This emphasis placed on rules stems from the underlying assumptions of institutional theory that economic agents acting in their own self-interest are not fully informed and rational, but are “capable of only approximate and limited rationality.” And what they can and cannot do in the current situation is determined by institutions that limit, structure and stimulate individual behavior. Therefore, reasons for government intervention arise when industrial policy requires improving existing or adapting new institutions, thereby reducing transaction costs, that is, for a reason that can be called “rule failures.” (rules failures).

The institutional foundations of industrial policy include arguments in favor of the formation of special rules in the areas of industrial innovation, industry diversification and global value chains.

Industrial innovation. Modern economic theory has moved away from an understanding of innovation as a mechanical process in which large financial investments automatically provide greater returns (after all, it was usually believed that increased R&D costs lead to increased innovation), towards an organic socio-cultural process in which intangible factors play a key role, the ability of economic entities to learn and behave cooperatively. Now the prerequisite for their successful actions in the field of innovation, which plays a key role in ensuring the competitiveness of industry, is considered to be a special social order based on “long rules” of interaction that create the prerequisites for long-term economic planning and on cooperation, and not just competition, of economic entities - that , which was called " co-opetition". In modern conditions, "innovation in industries is the result of the interaction of various actors (firms, universities, public agencies, financial organizations) that have formal and informal partnerships." And in such innovative business areas as pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, cooperation large, small and new firms is pervasive ( pervasive).

A commonly cited reason for government intervention in such relationships is that “markets provide insufficient incentives for firms to cooperate.” However, in this case, an explanation in neoclassical terms of markets, market failures and welfare economics based on an analysis of the interaction of independent selfish individuals is not enough. Institutional theory assumes that individuals “form their preferences not in isolation from other people, but in response to social events and widely disseminated information.” Moreover, in organizations their choices are limited by routines. Moreover, in individual organizations these are different routines, subordinated to different goals, not always commercial ones. Clearly, explaining the failures (or successes) of collaboration among such disparate organizations is beyond the scope of neoclassical theory. The reason for these failures is no longer the failure of markets, but the aforementioned failures of the rules (in particular, their short-term and non-partnership nature). And support for the “long rules” of partnerships between diverse organizations (instead of “short” and non-partnership ones) can be undertaken by the state interested in economic growth - again, taking into account possible government mistakes, corruption, etc. "The role of the state is therefore to act as a guarantor of cooperative behavior for each of the partners. For example, in Japan, the Ministry of International Trade and Industry brings together different types of businesses in projects and ensures that each partner acts honestly."

Industry diversification ( sectoral diversification) in industry, leading to structural changes and promoting economic growth and social welfare, involves the development of the production of goods that are not traditional for a given country or region. This usually does not require radical innovation based on R&D, but can be achieved by adapting world-known products and technologies for their production to local conditions - what is called “self-discovery” ( self- discovery). As with innovation, business organizations cannot independently solve the problems of such adaptation due to information problems and coordination failures. The solution lies in institutional measures that provide for the formation of rules and the organization on their basis of a process of public-private cooperation - through joint research and the search for consensus on where exactly information and coordination externalities arise, what, in this regard, the goals of industrial policy in such a context may be , and how they should be achieved. “The correct model of industrial policy,” notes D. Rodrik, “is not the application of Pigouvian taxes or subsidies by an autonomous government, but rather strategic cooperation between the private sector and government to identify where the most significant obstacles to restructuring are located and what type of intervention will benefit the most.” can probably eliminate them." At the same time, ordinary discussions about the instruments, costs and results of government intervention in the industrial economy are not of fundamental importance. It is much more important "to have a process in place to help identify areas of desirable intervention. Governments that understand this will be constantly looking for ways in which they can promote structural change and collaboration with the private sector. Industrial policy is thus more a state of mind than something -or others."

Global value chains. The processes of globalization and liberalization of international trade have led to changes in the situation in the world economy. Now, the Asian Development Bank notes, explaining where and how manufactured goods are made is no simple task - their design, manufacture, distribution and maintenance are divided into elements scattered around the world. We are talking about a system of international production and distribution relations, called “global value chains” ( global value chains- GVCs), in which usually the more labor-intensive stages of the process are transferred to the territory of developing countries. GVCs, now “a key and enduring structural feature of the global economy,” pose both new opportunities and new threats. On the one hand, participation in these chains allows firms from different countries (primarily less developed ones) to enter global production structures, improve production processes and products in accordance with GVCs standards, climb the technological ladder and gain broad access to international markets. However, according to some estimates, “the benefits of trade liberalization, which is accompanied by the creation of international supply chain agreements between firms in industrialized and less developed countries, can be 10-20 times greater than from trade liberalization itself.” On the other hand, to successfully export, it is no longer enough to efficiently produce competitive products: “Suppliers of labor-intensive goods from a developing country must now not only overcome traditional trade barriers, which remain high for some exports from developing countries, but also become part of a certain trading network in order for the export to take place."

To successfully overcome these new barriers, specific industrial policies are required.

It lies in the fact that the state must

1) help enterprises in their country adapt to the already existing rules of GVCs - through information about what alternative GVCs exist and what key requirements must be met to participate in them, what standards apply here and what needs to be done to achieve them, through organizing collective actions to creation of the infrastructure necessary to fulfill logistics requirements, etc.;

2) contribute to the formation of new international rules that are more favorable for domestic enterprises - through the organization of national trading companies, participation in collective actions of developing countries to harmonize and eliminate double standards, to monitor compliance with competition rules by large TNCs, their merger policies and acquisitions, etc.

When characterizing the institutional foundations of industrial policy in general, it is important to note that institutions (if considered as a factor of production) are immobile factors. Therefore, any country can copy production processes, import equipment, attract qualified personnel from abroad, but cannot borrow successful institutions. Their creation and development is a long process specific to each country, conditioned by the circumstances of place and time: “Effective institutions have always emerged as the result of a long chain of historical achievements - the ascent from the initial factors of a geographical nature to the direct factors derived from them, among which there are institutional ones.” . But such a formulation of the question already touches on the problem of the genesis of the institutions themselves, the study of which requires turning to the use of a different - evolutionary - paradigm.

4. Evolutionary foundations of industrial policy

In evolutionary economic theory, in contrast to neoclassical and institutional economics, the motives of human behavior are determined, in addition to considerations of rationality and social factors, by the natural desire to survive. In this case, behavior can be both selfish and altruistic, since “in the evolutionary process, what really matters is not individual survival as such, but rather the successful transmission of units of heredity or genes.” So, under certain conditions, “it may be more profitable for an individual to promote the reproduction of related individuals even at the cost of his own life, thereby acting self-sacrificingly for the benefit of others.” Competition for limited resources is explained not through the free choice of independent subjects, but through dominance hierarchies in the population, which “emerge in groups of living organisms to minimize aggression between individuals competing for limited resources. Since high social rank automatically gives access to all available resources, natural selection favored the tendencies of struggle for increasing social status."

The institutions discussed are also considered to be epigenetic in nature. They, like any cultural and behavioral superstructures, are based on a biological basis - in the sense that they are formed by living beings who act as carriers of genetic information and are guided (including) by instincts - innate reactions to external and (or) internal stimuli. And institutions develop “through public training in the rules of behavior, which begins with primitive, genetically determined forms of social behavior with the addition of new elements as a result of trial and error.”

Using ideas borrowed from biology (the concepts of units of evolution, processes of variability, selection and heredity), evolutionary theory examines changes in time and space of economic systems, but not any changes, but only those in which complex open systems adapt to their environment, diversity develops from common origins and new designs accumulate over time. Taking into account this scope of application of the theory under consideration, the evolutionary foundations of industrial policy can be found in the field of national innovation systems (NIS) and industrial clusters.

NIS are integral networks of organizations and institutions, the interaction of which determines the features of innovative development of individual countries. The NIS concept is based on the idea of ​​"technonationalism". This means that in each state, innovation efficiency is determined by the national specifics of the ways of interaction between economic agents with different types of knowledge and skills (enterprises, research institutes, universities, etc.) in the system of creating and using innovations 88 . This very formulation of the question is part of a broader complex of problems of gene-cultural coevolution and the formation of national characteristics of intelligence.

The long-standing scientific debate about whether nature or nurture influences intelligence more is still a matter of disagreement between modern environmentalists and geneticists, and so far the odds are about 50/50. In any case, it is clear that national characteristics do matter . And evolutionary economics, which addresses both sides of the argument, “makes a major contribution to understanding the importance of country characteristics for innovation. The concepts of national innovation system and technological trajectory highlight the specific institutional characteristics of different countries and the unique history of each country. national specificity and institutional dynamism, industrial policy gains new legitimacy."

OECD experts see the basis for government intervention in the context of NIS not in ordinary market failures, but in systematic failures - such as insufficient interaction between subjects in the system, a discrepancy between fundamental research in the public sector and applied research in industry , failures in the work of technology transfer institutions, insufficient ability of enterprises to receive and master information 92. Accordingly, the policy measures proposed by these specialists include the development of networks of business contacts (networking) and the innovative potential of enterprises 93 .

Meanwhile, in terms of the NIS, such a justification does not seem entirely correct: the concepts of the system and system failures are neutral in relation to national specifics (due, among other things, to the ethnic, historical and cultural community of people), while it is of key importance for the concept of the NIS. Systemic failures of NIS are characterized, firstly, by the dependence of these systems on the characteristics of previous development ( path dependence) and, secondly, the national specificity of the country that has emerged as a result of this process, characterized by a unique complex of genetic and cultural factors. Therefore, in this context, it is more correct to use evolutionary terminology that takes into account these aspects and define NIS shortcomings as failures of fitness (fitness failures). Natural processes of variability, selection and heredity can lead to the consolidation and spread of organizational routines that do not correspond to the national specifics of a given country and hinder the innovative development of its industry. Therefore, the government (taking into account restrictions on its possible failures) is required to organize a process of targeted, nationally oriented cultivation of organizational routines that determine the ability of participants in the innovation process to interact in network contacts, find and recognize relevant information and technologies, etc. In turn, the criterion for the success of such cultivation is not current economic efficiency, taking into account (institutionalism) or without taking into account (neoclassicalism) transaction costs, but the ability of economic entities to survive and reproduce, assessed through development indicators (for example, through indicators of the life cycle of technology, technological limits and breaks).

Industrial clusters can be defined as spatial agglomerations of manufacturers united by networks of intensive and diverse relationships. The concept of an industrial cluster differs from the concept of a conventional industrial agglomeration in that, in addition to the spatial concentration of enterprises, a cluster presupposes functional connections between its participants and complementary competencies.

Like many socio-economic phenomena, clusters change in time and space: they can grow and develop (as well as degrade), often (but not always) synchronously with the life cycle of the dominant industry. This evolutionary process “should be understood as a continuous, never the ongoing interaction of dependence on the past ( path dependence), creating a new one ( path creation) and destruction of existing ( path destruction)".

As a rule, the upward dynamics of the evolution of clusters is associated with the development of network relations and innovative behavior, when industrial enterprises become part of innovation clusters ( clusters of innovation) - spatial clusters of organizations interconnected in the innovation process - manufacturers, suppliers, service providers, universities, trade organizations, etc. Today, the special importance of such clusters is determined, firstly, by the fact that in the context of globalization, business gets better opportunities to choose the most suitable territory to apply their efforts. “The more markets globalize, the more likely it is that resources will flow to more attractive regions, thereby strengthening the role of clusters and influencing regional specialization.” The result of such processes is that, for example, in Europe up to 40% of employees work at enterprises included in clusters. And secondly, the fact that the traditional linear model of innovation (in the form of a sequential process of “fundamental research - applied research - R&D - new technologies and products”) is gradually losing its meaning. At the same time, the spatial model of a “learning region” is becoming increasingly relevant ( learning region), where innovation requires the parallel development of learning capabilities and the shaping of strategic innovative behavior among diverse and complementary economic actors that benefit “from geographic proximity that facilitates the flows of tacit knowledge and unplanned interactions that are critical elements of the innovation process.” State policy in relation to industrial clusters entering a trajectory of upward dynamics provides for measures “to concentrate often thematically dispersed companies at special points. These focal points generate the first joint actions within the cluster and allow it to enter the growth phase.”

The downward dynamics of cluster evolution leads to the formation of territorial isolation ( lock- ins), particularly in old industrial regions, where "original strengths based on geography and networks, such as the industrial environment, highly specialized infrastructure, close relationships between enterprises and strong support of regional institutions, turn into barriers to innovation." This situation can also be characterized as a failure of fitness, but with an emphasis not on national ones (as in the situation with NIS), but on the territorial aspects of the problem. An important reason for such isolation of old industrial regions is the organizational routines of self-sustaining regional coalitions of business and politicians ( self- sustaining coalition), in which representatives of large companies prefer not to invest in business restructuring because they are afraid of losing qualified workers, and government officials are not interested in such restructuring because they are afraid of losing tax revenues. To avoid the continuation of unfavorable trends leading to stagnation or decline, and to move to a different development trajectory involved in renewal, it is necessary to cultivate (taking into account the territorial context) organizational routines that shape the ability of such coalitions to activate innovation-oriented adaptation of old industrial clusters and to create new clusters in established industries and to the development of knowledge-intensive activities. The effectiveness of such actions, again, cannot be reduced to indicators of current efficiency, but requires the use of long-term growth indicators (for example, the criterion of balanced development).

Similar documents

The concept of industrial policy, its tools. Modern industrial policy of Russia. Regulator of markets for factors of production and final products. The role of the state in the development and implementation of a strategy for the long-term development of priority industries.

test, added 08/11/2014


Industrial policy as one of the main functions of the state. The influence of the state on the competitiveness of industrial production. Government activities to improve the efficiency of market mechanisms. Stimulating the investment process.

abstract, added 12/08/2014


State and problems of industrial development. Industry as one of the leading sectors of the economy, forming the foundation of scientific and technological transformation and development, social progress of society. Priority directions for industrial modernization.

test, added 09/14/2010


The main characteristics of industrial policy in the Russian Federation, the history of its development and development technology. Features of the new industrial policy in Russia in times of crisis, its necessity, goals, values, principles, subjects and stages.

course work, added 09/25/2011


Industrial policy: essence, types, problems, development strategy. Characteristics of the industrial policy of the Tomsk region: objectives, forms of implementation. Regulatory methods, support for industrial activities. Production of nanoobjects. Industrial zones.

course work, added 06/08/2008


Essence, goals, priorities of industrial policy. Implementation of industrial policy in the Republic of Kazakhstan at the present stage. Implementation of industrial and innovation policy in accordance with the Presidential Decree and the Implementation Action Plan.

test, added 09/28/2010


Industrial policy as a systemic program, a set of actions and measures for the development of the largest and most competitive national firms in the world market; its main goals, principles, stages and methods. Consideration of structural policy in Russian conditions.

test, added 03/12/2014


Classification of types of industrial policy. Interaction between the state and society in the process of developing industrial policy: scientific and technical forecasts. Analysis of legislation, macroeconomic and institutional components of industrial policy.

thesis, added 09/08/2011


Industrial policy as an organization of work in the decision-making process in the field of production and investment, development of infrastructure and human capital in order to stimulate domestic production. Its tasks and status in Kazakhstan.

presentation, added 11/10/2014


Brief description of the socio-economic development of the Chelyabinsk region. State regulation of the structure of production in the long term. Development of current directions for improving industrial policy in the Chelyabinsk region.

1 slide

2 slide

What is an open economic policy of the state? Economic goals of the state. Main directions of economic policy. Stabilization monetary policy Objectives Instruments Types Pros and cons Stabilization fiscal policy Objectives Instruments Types Pros and cons Structural policy Definition How to understand it Examples of structural policy Pros and cons Questions 1

3 slide

The economic policy of the state is the process of implementing its functions to achieve certain economic goals.

4 slide

Classic economic functions of the state are stabilization of the economy; protection of property rights; regulation of money circulation; income redistribution; regulation of relationships between employers and employees; control over foreign economic activity; production of public goods.

5 slide

The most general economic goals of the state: Ensuring economic growth (development!); creation of conditions for economic freedom (the right to choose the type, form and scope of economic activity, methods of its implementation and use of income from it); Ensuring economic security and economic efficiency;

6 slide

The most general economic goals of the state are to ensure full employment (everyone who can and wants to work should have a job); Providing assistance to those who cannot fully provide for themselves, etc.

7 slide

The main directions of state economic policy are stabilization and structural.

8 slide

Stabilization includes mainly fiscal (fiscal) and monetary (monetary) policies. The structural direction uses such methods of influencing the economy as state support for industries that are especially important for the development of the country’s entire economy, production of public goods, privatization, promoting competition and limiting monopolies, etc. If stabilization policy is aimed primarily at improving the economy, then structural policy is aimed at maintaining it balanced development, i.e. a healthy lifestyle.

Slide 9

Stabilization monetary policy What is it? What are the main benefits and risks associated with the use of its tools?

10 slide

Objectives of monetary policy Ensuring: stable economic growth, full employment of resources, stability of the price level, equilibrium of the balance of payments.

11 slide

Monetary policy influences aggregate demand. The object of regulation is the money supply. Monetary policy is determined and implemented by the Central Bank. However, changes in the money supply occur not only as a result of the operations of the Central Bank, but also of commercial banks, as well as decisions of the non-banking sector (consumers and firms).

Slide 13

Types of monetary policy There are two types of monetary policy: stimulating and contracting. Stimulating monetary policy is carried out during a recession in order to “energize” the economy, increase business activity in order to combat unemployment. Contractionary monetary policy is carried out during boom periods and is aimed at reducing business activity in order to combat inflation.

Slide 14

Advantages of monetary policy Absence of internal lag (the period of time between the moment of awareness of the economic situation in the country and the moment of taking measures to improve it). No crowding out effect. Expansionary monetary policy (increasing money supply) causes a reduction in the interest rate, which leads not to crowding out, but to stimulation of investment. Multiplier effect.

15 slide

Disadvantages of monetary policy Possibility of inflation. Expansionary monetary policy, i.e. An increase in the money supply leads to inflation even in the short term. The presence of an external lag due to the complexity and possible failures in the monetary transmission mechanism. The external lag represents the period of time from the moment the measures are taken until the result of their impact on the economy appears.

16 slide

Stabilization fiscal policy What is it? What are the main benefits and risks associated with the use of its tools?

Slide 17

Fiscal policy is the government's actions to stabilize the economy by changing the amount of government budget revenues or expenditures. Fiscal policy is actions to regulate aggregate demand. The economy is regulated by influencing the amount of total expenditures. A number of fiscal policy instruments can be used to influence aggregate supply.

18 slide

Fiscal policy goals: stable economic growth; 2) full employment of resources (solving the problem of cyclical unemployment); 3) stable price level. Instruments of fiscal policy - expenditures and revenues of the state budget: public procurement; 2) taxes; 3) transfers.

Slide 19

Types of fiscal policy Depending on the phase of the cycle, either stimulating or contractionary policies are applied. Expansionary fiscal policy is applied during a recession and is aimed at increasing aggregate demand. Its tools are: increasing government procurement, lowering taxes and increasing transfers. Contractionary fiscal policy is used during a boom and is aimed at reducing aggregate demand. Its tools are: reducing government purchases, increasing taxes and reducing transfers.

20 slide

Impact of Fiscal Policy Instruments on Aggregate Demand Government procurement is a component of aggregate demand, so changes in it have a direct impact, while taxes and transfers have an indirect impact on aggregate demand. Increased government purchases increase aggregate demand. An increase in transfers also increases aggregate demand because household personal income increases. An increase in taxes leads to a reduction in aggregate demand.

21 slides

The Impact of Fiscal Policy on Aggregate Supply Since firms view taxes as costs, an increase in taxes leads to a reduction in aggregate supply, and a reduction in taxes leads to an increase in business activity and output.

22 slide

Advantages of fiscal policy Multiplier effect (fiscal policy instruments have a multiplier effect on the value of aggregate output. Absence of external lag (external lag is the period of time between the adoption of a decision and the appearance of the first results. Availability of automatic stabilizers. Since these stabilizers are built-in, the government does not need take special measures to stabilize the economy.

Slide 23

Disadvantages of fiscal policy Presence of an internal lag. (this is the period of time between the need to change a policy and the decision to change it). Displacement effect. (budget expenditures during a recession to total income, which is the demand for money and the interest rate on the money market. Rise in the cost of loans to private investment, i.e. to “crowding out” part of the investment expenses of firms.

25 slide

Structural (industrial) policy What is it? What are the main benefits and risks associated with the use of its tools?

26 slide

Examples of industrial policy World experience provides examples of at least three types of industrial policy: export-oriented (creating conditions for the growth of exports of certain types of products), internally oriented (protecting the domestic market and ensuring economic self-sufficiency) strategic industrial policy aimed at limiting the use of one’s own natural and non-renewable resources (oil, forest, ecology, etc.).

Slide 27

Examples of industrial policy Export-oriented policy - South Korea in the 60s-80s and other “tigers” of Southeast Asia, China in the 80s and 90s, partly Japan, India in the 90s, Chile in the 70s and 80s -X. Internally oriented policy - India 60s - 80s, France 50s - 70s, Japan, China, USA (in terms of agricultural policy), USSR and to a certain extent Russia. Strategic industrial policy - actions of the USA, OPEC countries.

The subject of industrial policy is the state, and not any political power, but a state of the modern type - an abstract corporation that has its own legal entity, distinct from the personality of the rulers, including the government apparatus and the totality of citizens (subjects), but not coinciding with either with another, having clearly defined boundaries and existing only on the basis of recognition by other states.

INTRODUCTION. 1-4

Chapter 1. Industrial policy: concept, goals and objectives 5-12

Chapter 2. Directions of industrial policy and instruments. Principles of industrial policy. 13-28

Chapter 3. National objectives of industrial policy

Russia. 28-35

CONCLUSION.

The work contains 1 file

INTRODUCTION. 1-4

Chapter 1. Industrial policy: concept, goals and objectives 5-12

Chapter 2. Directions of industrial policy and instruments. Principles of industrial policy. 13-28

Chapter 3. National objectives of industrial policy

Russia. 28-35

CONCLUSION. 36-37

INTRODUCTION.

Industrial policy is a set of actions of the state as an institution taken to influence the activities of economic entities (enterprises, corporations, entrepreneurs, etc.), as well as certain aspects of these activities related to the acquisition of factors of production, organization of production, distribution and sales of goods and services in all phases of the life cycle of an economic entity and the life cycle of its products.

In this concept of industrial policy, its object is the producer of goods and services (manufacturing enterprise, corporation, individual entrepreneur, etc.). This approach differs from the traditional understanding of industrial policy, according to which its object is usually considered to be large industrial and technological complexes, giant corporations or industries, usually consisting of large, capital-intensive industries. However, the structural changes that have occurred in recent decades - the development of new production technologies, financial instruments, organizational structures, the globalization of production, trade and finance, the increasing role of knowledge, information and technology in production processes, etc. - all this makes the traditional idea of ​​the object of industrial policy limited and inadequate.

The subject of industrial policy is the state, and not any political power, but a state of the modern type - an abstract corporation that has its own legal entity, distinct from the personality of the rulers, including the government apparatus and the totality of citizens (subjects), but not coinciding with either with another, having clearly defined boundaries and existing only on the basis of recognition by other states. Industrial policy is an attribute of a modern type of state and as such is not characteristic of other types of political organization (such as tribes, feudal hierarchies, pre-industrial empires, “failed states”, etc.).

By the beginning of the 1990s. in Europe and the United States, the state began to abandon direct management of engineering infrastructures, privatize the electric power industry, transport and communications, and transfer public utility infrastructures into concession.

Thus, at the end of the twentieth century, a strong conviction arose that industrial policy in its original sense had practically exhausted itself. “Hard” industrial policy was replaced by “soft” (liberal). Its goal was to ensure the competitiveness of the national economy in an open market, and the main instrument was a set of institutional and financial regulatory measures that indirectly affect the technical and technological development of the economy and literally “dissolve” in the general macroeconomic policy.

The fact that in Russia at the beginning of the 21st century in the public space various representatives of the business and political elite presented to the state a request for industrial policy, often in the formats of the 19th - first half of the 20th centuries, indicates a deep crisis in the conceptual vision of how the industrial policy should be structured. economy.

At first glance, the need for an active industrial policy in the Russian Federation is determined by the fact that, unlike other economically developed countries that have experienced primary industrialization, Russia does not have structures capable of replacing the state as the subject of making large-scale technical and technological decisions. In turn, the idea of ​​Russia as an independent subject of history, having its own purpose, and therefore preserving its military-political and economic independence. Therefore, there is such a great interest among many people in returning to government bodies the function of the main design engineer and “assembler” of industry in society.

But this is only at first glance. In fact, in the Russian Federation, five different political and economic forces are requesting five different versions of industrial policy.

Firstly , industrial enterprises built back in Soviet times and industries formed on their basis offer the state to cover them with a “protectionist umbrella”, reorient them towards import substitution, protecting them from foreign competition with customs barriers and supporting exports with subsidies and low tariffs for services and products of natural monopolies.

Secondly , a special request for state industrial policy is made by large Russian integrated business groups (IBG), which successfully adapt to working conditions in the open market and, as a rule, have a raw material specialization. These companies are faced with extreme loads on the country’s infrastructure, with withdrawals of a significant share of natural resource rent from the budget and the inability to share the budget burden with other taxpayers. Therefore, IBGs are demanding that the state create preferences for them as the leading sector of the economy - “national champions”.

Third , the authorities of old industrial regions, having an outdated industry as an economic base, and not having an alternative offer of employment for the people employed in it, are forced to formulate and implement their own “industrial policy”. The regions would like to share responsibility (and most importantly, financing!) for this policy with the federal center, demanding from it self-determination not so much in relation to individual industries, technologies or enterprises, but rather to territorial production complexes.

Fourth , the so-called “technology lobby” is very influential in Russia, advocating state protectionism for innovative developments and the introduction of new technologies. Concerned about the loss of its position as a developer and seller of technology, it demands technological protectionism and preferences for Russian R&D.

Fifthly , a special group of agents interested in determining the state position in relation to national industry consists of representatives of that sector of the Russian economy that has fully adapted to life in the global market. They insist on abandoning “hard” industrial policy and on the transition to predominantly indirect state management of the economy through institutional (regulatory) measures. This is not so much an opposition to the state’s technological policy as it is against its separation from the general economic policy.

However, it should be taken into account that the main contradiction problematizing the possibility of an independent state industrial policy in Russia at the moment is the contradiction between the local nature of the majority of Russian industrial enterprises and the global economy in which they are already located. Since the 1998 default, the weak ruble has created preferences for the Russian industry, allowing it to regain (albeit not completely) the national market and facilitate the promotion of certain types of its products on the world market. The old industry, designed for isolation and internal balance of the economy, came to life, restored internal connections and demanded resources. However, now the reserves for growth of Russian industry, provided by the weak ruble and low compared to world domestic prices for certain types of resources (raw materials, transport and energy services, labor, etc.), have been virtually exhausted. Further economic recovery should be ensured by new factors related to the integration of the Russian economy into the world economy.

It can be assumed that in the near future the main task of Russian industry will be integration into the world market. From this point of view, it is advisable to divide the entire set of economic agents not into raw materials and non-raw materials or market and non-market sectors, but into spheres adapted and not adapted to the global market. Based on this, it is necessary to define new principles of Russian industrial policy. The latter should become a policy focused not only on Russia's internal problems, but also on the shift in the development of the global economy.

The reduction in the risk of military conflicts in the world has created conditions for the development of a single economic space, and new communication technologies have facilitated its organizational development with new production, trade and financial structures. At the same time, the globalization of finance and trade has significantly outpaced the so-called “material” production, which is constrained by a long process of changing fixed assets. In addition, the development of new technologies required workers with new key qualifications that could not be trained instantly.

The critical situation for the old industry was further aggravated by the fact that local markets began to shrink not only due to the unprecedented growth in the scale and efficiency of distribution, but also due to the global universalization of consumption. In low price segments and in the markets for mass-produced goods, the national industry is forced to compete with the most efficient manufacturer in the world, who sells its products cheaper than anyone else. And in the higher price segments, where consumption has long become symbolic, aimed at the signs and myths of modern societies, one has to compete with the world's most expensive brands - the embodiment of these symbols.

Chapter 1. Industrial policy: concept, goals and objectives

Industrial is the national policy of program-targeted regulation of the process of organizational, structural and technological modernization of industrial reproduction for the sake of a consistent increase in the output of high-tech products with a high share of added value and an increase in the purchasing power of the employed and the entire population of the country.

The concept of industrial policy in Russia has both its own history and its own specifics, and therefore causes controversy between various representatives of government, business and society. During the period of liberal reforms, industrial policy was understood by many as lobbying or the return of state control over the economy, characteristic of the Soviet era, which caused a negative attitude even towards the term itself.

The main way of its implementation is program-targeted regulation, using strategic forecasting, structural and technological planning and a system of functionally specialized bodies, or state institutions. Upon achieving the set goal and putting forward a new one, the system of institutions is subject to transformation, during which a regrouping and redistribution of functions and powers occurs within the state between relevant areas and priorities. The creation of flexible, program-targeted institutions for the implementation of national industrial policy seems to be of particular importance.

Due to a number of reasons, Russia is integrating into the open world market later than other industrialized countries. The discrepancy in the pace of inclusion of Russian industry, circulation systems, consumption and financial circulation in the global economy for the Russian Federation is becoming much more dramatic than for the “pioneer” countries of globalization. What suffers most in this situation is the old industry and old industrial regions, which are forced to pay for integration into the global market at the highest rates.

The integration of Russian industry into the global economy does not happen overnight and is not a frontal attack on the world market of all sectors and enterprises of the national industry. Russian industry, previously assembled into a technologically unified complex, on its way to the global market has expanded into a long string of enterprises solving sometimes disparate production, technological, trade, sales and financial and management problems. The old territorial production complexes also became internally stratified.

Nevertheless, globalization has laid down the main trends in the transformation of Russian industry:

1. Mastering new trading formats. Considering that in the modern economy trade drives production, in Russia we should expect explosive growth of retail chains and the development of new forms of market penetration (Internet trade, catalog trade, franchising, etc.). All this will require the development of industrial design, branding, and a qualitative change in the information environment on the market.

2. Achievement of Russian businesses of a size comparable to the global market. In solving this problem, Russian industrial enterprises will not necessarily have to join various types of holdings or vertically integrated companies. They can consolidate on the basis of a network principle as a kind of meta-corporation of suppliers and subcontractors, as well as competitors within homogeneous clusters.

According to the nature of the general orientation of state influence on the country's industry, industrial policy. They are classified as protective, aimed at preserving the existing industrial structure, maintaining employment, protecting national firms from foreign competition, adaptive, aimed at adapting the country’s industrial structure to the changes that have occurred in the structure of demand and changing conditions of competition in the world market, and proactive, when the state actively influences the development...

Share your work on social networks

If this work does not suit you, at the bottom of the page there is a list of similar works. You can also use the search button

ABSTRACT

Discipline: "Institutional Economics"

Topic: “State industrial policy”

Student of group X- M (s)- 31 V.V. Severov

Teacher Danilchik T.L.

Khabarovsk 2014

Introduction According to the nature of the general orientation of state influence on the country's industry, industrial policy. Classified as protective, aimed at preserving the existing industrial structure, maintaining employment, protecting national firms from foreign competition, adaptive, aimed at adapting the country’s industrial structure to changes in the structure of demand and changing conditions of competition in the world market, and proactive, when the state actively influences on the development of the country's industry, based on their vision of the desired image of its structure in a more or less long-term perspective. Industrial policy (hereinafter referred to as IP), as one of the main functions of the state, in its most general form, is a strategy focused on the formation and implementation of industrial development goals through various economic instruments. The term “industrial policy” came to Russia in the early 90s. to indicate the regulatory role of the state in the industrial and technological development of the country. In the era of administrative-planned economy in the USSR, the need for such a term did not exist, because the entire economic system essentially meant PP. There was no alternative system for making decisions from the state on investment by private business; the entire strategy for the economic development of industries and inter-industry complexes was determined centrally from a single economic center. In the system of ideas of a market economy, this was a super-industrial policy with its achievements, shortcomings and even failures. The need to identify the role of the state in developing and implementing a strategy for the long-term development of priority industries under the dominance of market relations arose due to the completely obvious “market failures” in the field of projects not designed for short-term profit. Among the directions of state industrial policy, we will consider the main ones, namely: 2.Improving market mechanisms 3.Formation of the technological base 4. Carrot and stick for investment Conclusion Literature

Introduction

According to the nature of the general orientation of state influence on the O industry of the country industrial policy. Classified as protective And meaningful, focused on preserving the existing industrial structure, maintaining employment, protecting national firms from foreign O strange competition, adaptive, aimed at adapting the country's industrial structure to the changes that have occurred in the structure of demand and the changed conditions of competition in the world market, and the initiation A tive, when the state actively influences the development of industrial O of the country, based on his vision of the desired image of its structure in a more or less long-term perspective.

Industrial policy (hereinafter referred to as PP) as one of the main functions of the state at gift in its most general form is a strategy, a guiding n aimed at the formation and implementation of industrial development goals through various economic instruments. The term "industry" n naya politics" came to Russia in the early 90s. to denote regula And the important role of the state in the industrial and technological development of the country A us. In the era of administrative-planned economy in the USSR, the need for such a term did not exist, because the entire economic system is essentially about h started PP. There was no alternative system of principles from the state I decisions on investment by private businesses, the entire business strategy T economic development of industries and inter-industry complexes was determined by the target n centralized from a single economic center. In the system d the principles of a market economy, it was a super-industrial policy with its own With struggles, shortcomings and even failures. Need for p notation O whether states are involved in the development and implementation of a long-term strategy h development of priority industries under the dominance of the Russian Federation s overnight relationships arose due to completely obvious “market failures” in the field of projects not designed for short-term profit. Among the directions e of state industrial policy, we will consider the fundamentals V some of them, namely:

• the influence of the state on the competitiveness of industrial production;
• government activities to improve the efficiency of market mechanisms;
• the impact of the state on the sectoral structure of production;
• the state's ability to stimulate the investment process.

1. Competitiveness

The need for the state to increase the competitiveness of industrial production is dictated by such fundamental differences in the modern developed market economy as the increasing intellectualization of industrial production, the strengthening of the role of innovation and the transnationalization of the activities of industrial firms.

As a result, the competitiveness of the country's industry increasingly depends on factors such as the quality of labor resources, the strength of ties between industrial firms, higher education institutions and research institutes, the ability to creatively master foreign technologies, the speed of spread of technological and other innovations in industry; the capacity of the domestic market and the level of requirements of domestic consumers of industrial products for their quality characteristics, the presence of clusters of technologically related and geographically close enterprises producing products that are in demand in foreign markets. The role of the state, which not only finances the bulk of general education institutions and universities, but also to a large extent determines the attitude of society towards education and the prestige of the profession of a scientist and teacher, in creating an education system that meets the requirements of modern industrial production, is very significant. It is clear that proactive government industrial policy must be supported by a focused education policy. For countries with economies in transition, the highest priority areas include a sharp expansion of training of specialists in the field of management, marketing and business law. Despite the importance of state financial support for fundamental science and high-priority applied scientific research programs, a very large positive role can be played by the state’s organizational activities in the following areas. Firstly, the creation of government structures focused on identifying potential industrial consumers of knowledge accumulated by state research institutes and universities. Secondly, state coordination of R&D programs, in which industrial enterprises and university laboratories, as well as government research organizations, participate. An important factor in maintaining the competitiveness of a country's industry is the presence of conditions conducive to the rapid spread of technological and other innovations in it. Since these conditions are determined primarily by the dynamics of the investment process, government activities in this regard are implemented in the sphere of macroeconomic policy, the success of which depends on the ability to create a favorable investment climate through monetary and fiscal policies. In addition, due to the fact that the lack of financial resources among small innovating firms very often serves as an insurmountable barrier at the stage of introducing scientific and technical knowledge into new, economically viable technological processes and types of products, the state should help expand the possibilities of financing innovative business. The state has the opportunity to have a significant influence on such conditions for the competitiveness of the country's industry, such as the presence of a capacious domestic market and the strict requirements of domestic consumers of industrial products for their quality characteristics. All developed market economy countries, in order to maintain the competitiveness of their industries, stimulate demand for high-tech products through government procurement in industries owned by the state or under strict state regulation (electric power industry, primarily nuclear, telecommunications, aviation and railway transport), as well as to meet the military needs of the country. At the same time, discrimination against foreign companies producing similar products is widely practiced.

2. Improving market mechanisms

State activities to improve the efficiency of market mechanisms and mitigate their inherent imperfections are the second important component of modern industrial policy. The areas in which imperfections in market coordination mechanisms appear are different: Firstly, the production of public goods and services (for example, scientific research, health services, weapons production, etc.). It is believed that in the production of these types of goods there is a fundamental difference between the parameters of efficiency on the basis of which private firms operate and efficiency from the point of view of society as a whole. Secondly, market imperfections are associated with the consequences of interdependence and complementarity of investments, manifested in the form of “externalities”, in particular when part of the profit from a particular investment can be “captured” by other investors associated with it. Thirdly, competition through innovation can hardly satisfy the principles of perfect competition. “Competition through new products and processes,” states the work of American economists, “is imperfect both in essence and in results... Without the lure of higher returns, there would be no motive for innovation.” As industrial development takes on an increasingly innovative character , and innovative competition, in fact, is imperfect, with huge external effects, a strong monopoly element, then the possibilities for the development of industrial production based solely on market coordination mechanisms seem to be very limited. Finally, fourthly, a market economy is characterized by complex problems that complicate the distribution of resources with an emphasis on the long term.

In a market economy, comprehensive information support for industrial firms is a necessary condition for their survival and effective operation. A huge amount of work on collecting and publishing information of an economic, scientific, technical, demographic and similar nature, widely used by industrial firms when making investment and other decisions, is carried out in countries with developed market economies by government departments, although they, of course, are not the only source of information used. information firms.

It should be emphasized that government agencies disseminate the information they collect without any restrictions and at affordable prices. Much attention is paid to the use of information collected by the state to develop a system of indicators used to analyze the state of general economic conditions and its short-term forecasting. A very important aspect of the state’s information activity in market economy countries is the development of medium- and long-term forecasts for economic development, including industry, countries and world markets for the most important industrial goods.

3.Formation of the technological base

The achievement of dynamic competitive advantages of state industrial policy can also be influenced by influencing the technologies used in the country's industry and, accordingly, its industrial structure. The most obvious influence of the state on the technological structure of industrial production was manifested in the creation of state industrial enterprises and the nationalization of entire industries. At the same time, the historical experience of market economies does not provide grounds for unambiguous and unconditional assessments of the role of state entrepreneurship in the development of industrial production. If we assume that by means of state policy it is possible to increase the national income of a country at the expense of its competitors by stimulating technologies and industries that generate higher “rent” than other technologies and industries, then, obviously, the presence of such an opportunity for a long time contradicts the operating conditions systems of competitive markets and industries with free intercountry and intersectoral flow of capital.

The creation of state industrial companies is not the only and, in modern conditions, far from the most optimal instrument for the state to influence the technological structure of the country’s industry.

4. Carrot and stick for investment

Another, no less important task of the state’s macroeconomic policy, as applied to the problems of modernizing the country’s industrial structure, is to create favorable conditions for a dynamic investment process.

The following instruments of government influence on the dynamics of the investment process are actively used:

• public investment, and not only in infrastructure;
• tax incentives for investment;
• containment of prices for equipment through preferential customs duties on its import;
• influencing interest rates and maintaining them below market levels.

A bank loan plays a very important role in financing investment programs, and the state actively influenced both the cost of the loan and the direction of its flows. The dominant role was played by internal sources (retained earnings and depreciation charges) and bank loans. State financial institutions played an important role in financing investment programs in many dynamically developing countries. The state's influence on price proportions in order to stimulate the investment process was not limited to the regulation of interest rates. World Bank experts point out that in these countries, tax, tariff and exchange rate policies not only removed part of the investment risk from investor firms and moderately suppressed interest rates, but also controlled the import of capital, and also maintained relatively low prices for investment goods .At the same time, the possibilities of using price imbalances created by government regulation in order to stimulate the investment process and economic growth of the country are significantly narrowing as its involvement in global economic relations increases. And about another option for stimulating investment policy aimed at developing the real sector of the economy, use of the tax system. We can distinguish two most important directions of the state’s tax policy that can have a significant impact on the development of the country’s industry.

Firstly, by influencing through taxes the level of savings of the population, depreciation funds of firms and their retained earnings, i.e., the size of potential sources of financing of investment programs of firms, the state is able to influence the most important macroeconomic proportions, in particular the distribution of national income between accumulation and consumption.

Secondly, using targeted tax incentives, as well as legislation regarding depreciation, the state is able to influence the ratio between firms’ investments in the active and passive parts of fixed assets, the rate of reproduction of fixed capital in the country’s industry, and stimulate the investment activities of firms in priority areas. state directions, influence the regional placement of industrial investments.

5. Problems of state support for industry in Russia

It is obvious that if the main goal of the economic reform being carried out in Russia is the creation of a modern market economy, then the Russian state is obliged to perform the functions listed above, which are characteristic of all countries with a market economy. At the same time, the peculiarities of the current situation in the economy of our country require that the state not be limited only to these functions.

Overcoming negative trends in Russian industrial production and creating the preconditions for fundamental changes in its structure is impossible without a meaningful and targeted state industrial policy, and in the most favorable version, this policy should serve as an instrument for implementing the country's industrial development strategy based on public consensus. Such a strategy should be determined taking into account the uniqueness of the current situation in Russia. This uniqueness is due to a whole complex of technological and socio-political factors.

In socio-political terms, the current situation in Russia is determined by the sharp differentiation of incomes between a small group of the population and the bulk of it. During the years of reforms, a middle class has not developed in Russia, in the absence of which it is impossible to create a market economy of mass consumption and an adequate stable political regime of social-democratic or liberal orientation.

Meanwhile, until now, the transformation of the Russian economy is taking place in the absence of any meaningful strategy for the industrial development of the country. In countries with a democratic orientation, the determination of an industrial development strategy is not the exclusive prerogative of central government bodies. This matter requires the active participation of representatives of industrial business circles, trade unions, independent research organizations, and regional authorities. At the same time, central government structures, acting as a participant and coordinator of the development of the country’s industrial development strategy, offer their assessments of the prospects for the development of the world economy and its individual regions (primarily those most closely related to the country’s industry), world markets for important industrial goods, scientific and technical progress, environmental situation, etc., formulate their ideas about the desired directions of industrial development of the country.

For such work, certain organizational structures are created in which there is a thorough discussion of problems related to the development of a strategy for the industrial development of the country, including problems of a sectoral and regional nature. The activities of such structures not only make it possible to get a more complete and clear picture of the problems and prospects for the development of the country's industry, its most vulnerable areas, potential sources of growth and competitive advantages, but also creates the prerequisites for the formation of public consensus regarding the vision of the future of the country's industry. Such consent serves, in particular, as an important condition for the rapid legislative implementation of measures in the field of industrial policy. The function of the leader in the creation and coordination of the activities of these structures should be performed by an authoritative department of the executive branch, therefore the Japanese experience deserves the closest study and use.

We have to admit that at present there is no department in the executive power of Russia that, due to its intellectual potential and authority, can assume the functions of initiator and coordinator of the development of a strategy for the country's industrial development. The development of a public consensus regarding the vision of the future of Russia is also complicated by the blurred values ​​of the main part of the country's population due to the collapse of the totalitarian atheistic state and the negative consequences of the reforms currently being implemented for the majority of the country's population. Realizing that the development of a strategy for the industrial development of a country and an adequate state industrial policy requires colossal collective efforts, we note only some of the contours of such a strategy and policy. A strategy for the industrial development of a country involves identifying the main goals in a more or less long term, the main obstacles to implementation of these goals and means of overcoming these obstacles and achieving the set goals. The most important strategic goals for the development of Russian industry should, it seems, include the preservation and improvement of the main elements of life support infrastructure, improving the quality of life (physical and mental health of the nation, ecology, education and housing) ; maintaining a sufficient level of the country's defense capability.

The main obstacles to the implementation of these goals are the continuing development of a deep and protracted general economic and industrial crisis, without any positive changes in the technological structure of industrial production, an increasingly deepening gap between the financial sector and the state of Russian industry, and an increasing shortage of investment resources. Russia's state industrial policy should be focused on overcoming these obstacles and be proactive in nature, based on a vision of the desired image of the industrial structure in a more or less long-term perspective. As for the technological structure of Russian industry, it should be built on the basis of a thorough assessment of the existing scientific and technological potential taking into account the main directions of world scientific and technological progress and a number of factors. To do this, it is necessary to determine: in which technologies, based on considerations of national security in its various aspects, one’s own production potential is needed and what level it should reach; in which technologies Russia has a chance to achieve a breakthrough and strengthen its competitiveness; satisfying what needs is appropriate through the import of industrial products and technologies. Based on this, the following directions of government activity within the framework of industrial policy can be determined. There is a need for active, coordinating activities of government departments in the field of technological forecasting and the development of a set of criteria on the basis of which priority technologies for Russian industry should be selected.

The state can help increase the technological potential of Russian industry, both by creating closed systems of “research and development production of high-tech products in Russian companies large-scale purchases of these products by the state” that are poorly accessible to foreign competition, and by stimulating the influx of foreign capital and technology through the admission of foreign companies to the production of high-tech products in the country and government procurement of these products. Most likely, both options should be combined depending on the state of scientific and technological potential in specific areas of science and technology. Government funding for basic science and applied scientific research is needed for priority technologies. Despite the importance of state financial support for fundamental science and the highest priority programs of applied scientific research, an important positive role can be played by the state’s organizational activities in the following areas: the creation of state structures focused on identifying potential industrial consumers of knowledge accumulated by state research institutes and universities; coordination activities of the state in conducting R&D, in which industrial enterprises and university laboratories, as well as state research organizations, participate.

Updating the technological structure of Russian industry is possible only in the conditions of a dynamic investment process, which crucially depends on the tax, budget and monetary policies of the state. This implies the need to reform the tax system with an emphasis on creating preferential conditions for savings and capital accumulation, as well as liberalizing monetary policy and creating conditions for additional emissions into industrial investments. In this regard, it seems necessary to create state investment development banks, without which a quick way out of the deep investment crisis is hardly possible. A realistic assessment of the capabilities of the capital market as a source of financing investment programs requires recognizing that its role in Russia for many years to come will most likely be generally insignificant. Therefore, the state should focus primarily on creating conditions that stimulate its own sources of accumulation in industrial structures (depreciation policy is important in this regard) and providing these structures with long-term credit resources.

The critical situation in Russian industry with non-payments dictates the need for an active state policy at the microeconomic level, including: - the allocation of large industrial enterprises and financial and industrial groups that, due to their technological and managerial potential and financial condition, are capable of playing the role of leaders; creating conditions that facilitate the absorption by leaders or their taking control of industrial enterprises that have technological development potential, but do not have the financial capacity to implement it; liquidation of industrial enterprises that are hopeless in all respects while simultaneously retraining their personnel and providing them with employment.

Despite the importance of the active state policy to create a competitive economic environment through privatization, demonopolization, and support for small-scale industrial entrepreneurship, the state should promote the development of cooperation between both major social groups and enterprises within industries and their complexes.

The development of social partnership at the level of “state - industrial sectoral associations - trade unions” could help maintain macroeconomic stabilization through the implementation of one or another policy of regulating prices and incomes. With all the dangers that the cartelization of industry is fraught with, the creation of industry associations of industrial enterprises such as cartels (on a temporary basis and with the development of clear criteria for the activities of firms included in the cartels) could help stabilize industrial production and modernize its technological base. An important direction of state industrial policy in in the coming years there should be a mitigation of the negative social consequences caused by changes in the structure of industrial production. It is obvious that this problem will be especially acute over the coming years. To mitigate it, the state is obliged to implement a whole range of measures, including a broad program of public works (in particular, to modernize infrastructure), a program to retrain the workforce and increase its mobility, as well as provide sufficient protection from excessive foreign competition in the industries that are most important from the point of view of maintaining employment. Finally, it is necessary to significantly increase the efficiency of management of industrial enterprises that remain state property.

Conclusion

In recent years, the problem of government influence on the industrial development of the country has become increasingly relevant. In this regard, the state industrial policy of Russia should now become an integral part of the state economic policy (SEP), largely ensuring the achievement of its goals. Therefore, the development and implementation of GPP is the most important task of public administration. Determining the features of the formation and implementation mechanism of state industrial policy is one of the most important theoretical, methodological and practical tasks of market transformations.

The degree of development of the problem. One of the reasons for the underestimation of state industrial policy in the management system of a transition economy is the weakness of scientific study of the significance of the state industrial policy for the Russian economy.

Summarizing all of the above, we can conclude that on a common platform, the needs for the implementation of PP have risen and many doctrines are competing with each other. All considered concepts differ in methods of implementation, in methods of implementation, in a system of goals and values. The need for a holistic state industrial and economic strategy is obvious and relevant throughout all the years of radical economic reforms. Almost all sensible and nationally oriented groups in society are in favor of PP. Against the PP are only the top of cosmopolitan capital in the largest domestic raw materials companies and the ruling bureaucracy serving their interests. It is obvious that the absence of PP in the context of the rapid degradation of the industrial base and social conditions of life of the country is nonsense, explained by the unity and organization of its opponents while the disunity of its supporters. The main subject of industrial development is always the state represented by a set of institutions of economic power that set the “rules of the game” in industrial strategy and select winners and losers, i.e. partially replacing the functions of market competition, which liberals are always so afraid of. In addition, home-grown interpreters of Hayek-Mises ideas are so obviously tied to the interests of energy and raw materials companies built into the global market for these products that any talk about PP is perceived by them absolutely “correctly”, since in modern Russian conditions this means an inevitable redistribution of income from transnational "raw materials" in favor of national "industrialists" with the help of the economic power of the state. Therefore, all that liberals demand from the state is the preservation and strengthening of the “competitive” regime in the economy, “forgetting” that energy and raw materials monopolies feel most at ease in the conditions of such “competition”, cheaply buying up all the necessary resources within the country (including labor strength and government support in the form, for example, of the notorious mineral extraction tax, which created unprecedented opportunities for avoiding taxation of differential rent) and selling finished products at high prices both on the world and on the domestic market. Super profits end up in offshore zones and Western banks.

PP issues are real political-economic issues in the theory and practice of reforms, because they affect the fundamental economic interests of the main strata of society. They address deep issues of creation, distribution and appropriation of social wealth. And as long as economic power is in the hands of “transnationals,” the state will diligently avoid issues of industrial strategy, replacing it with such “important” reforms as the monetization of benefits, the commercialization of science and education, endless shake-ups of the management apparatus, etc.

Literature

1. Zevin L.Z. “Economic structures of different levels in global processes: features of interaction. Scientific report from IMEPI RAS. - M: EPICON, 2009, pp. 8-9.
2. Tatarkin A. Industrial policy as the basis for systemic modernization of the Russian economy // Probl. theory and practice of management. - 2011- N 1. - P.8-21.
3. Pilipenko I. Cluster policy in Russia // Society and Economics. - 2009- N 8. - P.28-64.
4. Industrial Gazette No. 8-9(19-20) April 2010
5. Zavadnikov V. Industrial policy in Russia / V. Zavadnikov, Yu. Kuznetsov // Econ. policy. - 2011. - N 3. - P.5-17.
6. Zeltyn A.S. State industrial policy in market economies // ECO. - 2012. - N 3. - P.42-60.
7. Ivanov V.S. Rational management of territory as a factor in the development of industrial policy // Microeconomics. - 2009. - N 5. - P.124-127.
8. Abramov M. On industrial policy and tax regulation // Free Thought. - 2009. - N 1. - P.101-116.
9. Abramov M.D. Industrial policy and tax regulation // ECO. - 2009. - N 1. - P. 165-173.

Other similar works that may interest you.vshm>
17025.		Industrial policy under the resource curse: between Scylla and Charybdis	12.66 KB
	This is due to the fact that these countries mainly import finished products, prices for which in the long term grow faster than prices for raw materials. However, a large-scale study of 25 types of primary products over a time period of more than 350 years for some of them showed that this thesis is not true for all types of raw materials and not for all time periods3. With an increase in the influx of foreign currency associated with a favorable external environment, the Central Bank is forced to buy up surpluses of this currency in order to retain...
3217.		State migration policy of the Russian Federation	61.76 KB
	Creating conditions for attracting qualified legal labor resources to the Russian Federation, improving migration registration of foreign citizens, combating illegal migration, as well as a set of measures to support internal labor migration cannot be carried out without collecting and analyzing high-quality and detailed information on migration.
3882.		State policy in the field of combating corruption	45.75 KB
	The problem of corruption has been repeatedly identified by state leaders as a systemic problem. Systemic corruption is a recognition of the fact that corruption is not only widespread, but also reproduced at various levels of the state apparatus and society.
13085.		State policy in the field of immunoprevention of infectious diseases	19.55 KB
	State policy in the field of immunization is aimed at preventing, limiting the spread and eliminating infectious diseases through preventive vaccinations. Immunoprophylaxis a system of measures carried out to prevent the spread and elimination of infections through preventive vaccinations. vaccinations regulatory legal act establishing the timing and procedure for carrying out professional vaccinations for citizens. vaccinations.
21061.		STATE POLICY IN RELATION TO YOUNG FAMILIES (BASED ON THE EXAMPLE OF RF REGIONS)	89.33 KB
	And since the family reacts very quickly and sensitively to all the positive and negative changes occurring in society, it needs social protection from government bodies dealing with issues related to such groups of people as young families. History does not know states of cities of major historical periods that could do without a family. Human culture cannot be imagined without the family of love of children of marital and kinship relationships. The family policy of most civilized states considers one of the main tasks...
12288.		Youth state policy using the example of the Department of Youth Affairs of the Kirov Region	146.28 KB
	Organizational and legal characteristics of the Department of Youth Affairs of the Kirov Region. Optimization of the activities of the Youth Affairs Department. It is necessary to develop and implement effective methods of work of state authorities and local governments to unlock the potential of modern youth and use it in the innovative interests of the state.
7338.		State policy and regulation of innovation activity in modern conditions of development of the Republic of Belarus	50.95 KB
	Key concepts: innovation strategy, priority areas in innovation policy, factors of economic growth, legal framework and government regulation of innovation activities, formation of a knowledge economy. The goals of innovation policy are to increase the contribution of science to the development of the country's economy, ensure progressive transformations in the structure of the national economy and production, increase the competitiveness of the national economy in the world market, improve environmental...
21062.		STATE POLICY IN THE FIELD OF YOUTH EMPLOYMENT (BASED ON THE EXAMPLE OF MUNICIPAL UNITS OF THE KRASNODAR REGION)	1.17 MB
	At the present stage, young people are one of the most widely studied categories of the population. However, in recent years, there has been an increasingly acute need, both in science and in practice, for a more in-depth analysis of youth problems, which involves a holistic approach to the study of the entire diversity of social connections and manifestations of the younger generation, i.e. its development, interaction between youth and society. This is due to the presence of a serious social problem, expressed in the contradiction between
6298.		CONTENT AND FUNCTIONS OF STATE AND MUNICIPAL FINANCES, THEIR COMPOSITION. STATE FINANCIAL POLICY. STATE REGULATION OF FINANCE	29.88 KB
	Content and direction of financial policy. The main directions of modern financial policy of the Russian Federation. Basic methods and forms of state and municipal finance management In a broad sense, there are several forms and methods of state financial management: financial planning; forecasting; programming; financial regulation; financial control; adoption of financial legislation; system of methods for mobilizing financial resources. Financial planning is part of the national economic...
17301.		Civil service	41.75 KB
	The main function of both the civil service and the municipal service is to serve society for this purpose it is created to ensure a stable connection between the state and society of the state and its citizens in their activities to practically implement democratic principles to expand the conditions for the creation of civil society to motivate the development of its self-government activities through professional management work as much as possible delegate management functions to public institutions to citizens in a word, develop and...