The article is the concept of structural changes in the economy. Abstract: Structural shifts in the modern Russian economy

Enterprise size, people

Enterprise size, people

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

General characteristics of the dynamics of social labor productivity

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

Table 1. Average annual growth rate of national economic efficiency indicators, %

Indicator
Indicator
Labor productivity
Capital productivity
Capital-labor ratio

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

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

Further analysis of trends in labor productivity dynamics revealed the presence of fairly stable three-year cyclical surges in the rate of its growth (Fig. 1). This indicates the objective nature of the dynamics of social labor productivity, which had a noticeable impact on all economic processes.

The existence of such short-term cycles, in our opinion, is due to the following three reasons: firstly, the three-year cyclical fluctuations in agricultural land productivity; secondly, lags in investment and fund processes and, thirdly, sectoral structural shifts. Let us take a closer look at the impact of structural changes on the dynamics of labor productivity.

Economic markets and macrostructural shifts

Analysis of the sectoral breakdown of the economy allows us to identify two main groups of factors for the growth of social labor productivity: inter-industry and intra-industry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Industry shifts and their impact on social labor productivity trends

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

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

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

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

Period 1981-1985 was characterized by a relative acceleration of the growth rate of labor productivity in agriculture and a significant slowdown in industry, which influenced a further decrease in the growth rate of overall social labor productivity and led to a decrease in the share of net industrial products in the created national income by 5.3% and an increase in the share of agriculture by 4.4%. Shifts in the structures of employment and fixed assets occurred in the form of minor fluctuations in industry shares, which were generally labor-saving in nature. The overall positive contribution of structural changes to the increase in social labor productivity in the Eleventh Five-Year Plan amounted to 8.5%.

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

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

Thus, the main emphasis in 1986-1988. was aimed at increasing the efficiency of agriculture and achieving, on this basis, slightly higher rates of growth in the productivity of social labor. This is the main feature of this stage of economic development. As for the structural restructuring of social production, its contribution to the growth rate of social labor productivity in 1986-1988. was at the same level as in the Eleventh Five-Year Plan.

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

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

The speed of structural changes and the functioning of economic markets

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

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

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

The absence of well-organized commodity and stock markets affected all structural changes, since it is investment spillovers that induce shifts in the structures of fixed assets, employment and national income. In this sense, shifts in the structure of fixed production assets, which are equivalent to changes in the structure of jobs, are decisive, affecting the direction and speed of movement of labor and thereby regulating the scale of production.

The insufficient mobility of the structure of fixed assets was also caused by the length of construction and investment lags, the insufficiently intensive decommissioning of obsolete equipment, and the gigantic service life of fixed assets, which led to the accumulation of ballast means of production in the national economy, the huge volume of which made the structure of fixed assets insensitive to renewal processes.

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

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

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

The econometric calculations carried out showed that the intensity of macrostructural changes in general was insignificantly dependent on the degree of differentiation of labor productivity levels in sectors of material production - the correlation coefficient was only 0.38. Moreover, the degree of dependence of the sectoral structure of national income was the highest - the correlation coefficient for it was 0.47; The structure of fixed production assets turned out to be less flexible - the correlation coefficient was 0.21; The employment structure was characterized by an even lesser degree of dependence—the correlation coefficient was only 0.14.

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

Economic crisis 1975- 1985 and its features

An economic crisis is usually characterized by the following signs: first, a sharp decline in the growth rate of social labor productivity; secondly, negative growth rates of national economic capital productivity.

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

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

A distinctive feature of the crisis of 1975-1985. is its duration. The official denial of the possibility of the existence of crises in our country, the lack of means to prevent it and the absence of an effective economic mechanism that would allow us to quickly overcome the crisis situation, led to the fact that the crisis phase was extended over a 10-year period.

Table 3. Dynamics of changes in the structure of industrial enterprises, %

Table 4. Dynamics of changes in the structure of the number of industrial industrial enterprises, %

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trends in consolidation of production facilities and growth in labor productivity in industry

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

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

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

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

From the table 6 it can be seen that in 1961-1968. shifts in the structure of employment in industry were labor-consuming in nature and compensated for about 2% of the total increase in labor productivity in the industry. This is due to the transition to the consolidation of industrial facilities, while the level of labor productivity at large enterprises was only 79% of that of small enterprises. To a certain extent, this situation was caused by the transfer of the national economic burden to the industrial sector of the economy and a significant influx of labor resources into industrial sectors in the 60s, which stimulated shifts in the reproductive structure of funds, initiating the process of expansion of functioning production facilities. An additional impetus for increasing the share of giant enterprises was given by shifts in the structure of industrial subsectors towards an increase in the share of basic industries, which are characterized by a higher level of employment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exchange mechanism and organizational forms as a means of increasing labor productivity and structural activity of the economy

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

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

One such indicator can be the stock exchange, an important function of which is its ability to respond to increased needs during the period of structural restructuring (manifested, in particular, in the trend towards a decrease in the growth rate of social labor productivity) by sharply reducing the exchange rate value of fictitious capital, which helps determine the most promising areas of investment and more or less prompt resolution of structural contradictions. In addition, the stock exchange is one of the most important means of constant intersectoral flow of capital.

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

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

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

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

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

Global trends in the disaggregation of enterprises are also associated with the emergence in the early 70s of a number of factors acting towards reducing the size of an effective enterprise: the transition to electronic automation; the emergence of technologies characterized by relatively low capital intensity; deepening differentiation of demand and division of labor; a sharp increase in the risk associated with the implementation of large projects; shortening the product life cycle; socio-psychological factors. For example, studies by Western econometricians have revealed a close correlation between the size of enterprises, on the one hand, and the intensity of labor disruptions, the level of staff turnover and other negative phenomena, on the other.

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

References

1. Golovin I., Pevzner A. On small enterprises (organization and activities in new economic conditions//Plan. Economy. 1988. No. 10.

2. Profit rate and capital flow. Using the example of the USA. M.: Nauka, 1987.

3. National economy of the USSR. Stat. yearbooks for 1960-1988. M.: Finance and Statistics.

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

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

Balatsky E.V., Bogomolov Yu.P. Labor productivity and structural changes in the economy // “Izvestia of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Economic series". No. 3, 1991. P.28-39.

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

Reveal the essence and concept of structural changes;

Classify structural changes according to various characteristics and grounds;

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

To study the phenomenon of structural changes in the modern Russian economy based on innovation, evaluate and consider prospects.

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

1. Structural changes as an economic phenomenon

1.1 Essence and concept of structural changes

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

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

All structures, including economic ones, go through the following stages in their development: origin, growth, period of maturity, regressive transformations (crisis) and disappearance or collapse. Emergence and growth can be considered as a process of organization within the framework of the old structure, a process of struggle with conservative parties and elements, a process of changing systemic qualities. The period of maturity characterizes the stationary state of the structure, when the processes of organization and disorganization balance each other. Regressive transformations reflect the process of disorganization of the structure, when it, in turn, gives way to a new structure. Continuity, the formation of new structures in the depths of old ones and on their basis, plays a great importance in the development of structures. There are not and cannot be pure structures of one kind or another; they always contain elements of old and the beginnings of future relationships, in addition, different structures sometimes coexist with each other.

In this regard, we can highlight such basic processes occurring in the depths of each structure as adaptation and transformation. Even K. Marx wrote that “... the organic system as a total whole has its own prerequisites, and its development in the direction of integrity consists precisely in subjugating all the elements of society or creating from it the organs it still lacks.” At this stage, the emerging elements of new structures cannot exist otherwise than by adapting to the old components, integrating into the system of their connections. However, gradually the connections are transformed, a new integrity emerges, and everything repeats itself 1 .

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

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

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

A structural shift is understood as any significant change in the internal structure of a system, the relationships between its elements, the laws of these relationships, leading to a change in the basic (integral) system qualities. From the definition it follows that structural changes are a type of dynamic processes occurring in the economic system. Along with them, other manifestations of economic dynamics are distinguished: cycles, fluctuations, disturbances.

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

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

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

1.2. Classification of structural changes according to various characteristics and grounds

Structural shifts in the economy are classified according to various criteria and grounds, which not only show all their diversity, but also make it possible to characterize the same structural shift from different sides: proximity in space, length in time, coverage of economic elements 1:

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

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

3) Based on the scope of economic elements, global and local, macro, meso, micro and nanoshifts are distinguished. Microshifts are structural changes at the level of the enterprise, its divisions, and the company; meso - at the level of more complex economic systems: corporations, industries. Macroshifts are changes in such economic entities as the national and world economy. Macroshifts lead to changes in the basic economic proportions and indicators of the functioning of the economy. Many local shifts in the economic structure (for example, renewal of production at a single enterprise) merge into global shifts, changing the entire picture of socio-economic life beyond recognition.

In turn, all local economic structures experience powerful shocks from global macro shifts and are drawn into the process of further structural transformation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UDC 330.3+338.2

Bulletin of St. Petersburg State University. Ser. 5. 2013. Issue. 1

A. N. Lyakin

STRUCTURAL SHIFT IN THE RUSSIAN ECONOMY AND INDUSTRIAL POLICY

The intensity and direction of structural changes in the Russian economy varied throughout the entire period of post-socialist development. Within the framework of this article, an attempt is made to assess how their intensity changed depending on the state of the market, during periods of recession or growth, whether industry changes took place under the pressure of market demand, or whether the emerging proportions were formed under the influence of targeted government policy.

The intensity of structural changes in the Russian economy

The unfavorable nature of the shifts taking place in the Russian economy is noted by all researchers working in the field of macroeconomic dynamics, studying the features of Russian growth of the last decade, and the competitiveness of the Russian economy. In this regard, it is advisable, first of all, to refer to the discussion on the need for new industrialization in the Russian economy, conducted by the Economist magazine. At the same time, the characteristics of structural changes are predominantly descriptive. There is an increase in the share of the mining industry in output and a reduction in manufacturing, a decrease in the share of industries producing high-tech products in total added value, a decrease in production volumes in mechanical engineering - all these estimates, while certainly fair, do not show the scale of the ongoing shifts, their dependence on the economic dynamics, direction of structural changes.

Interest in the quantitative assessment of structural changes occurring during economic growth and in the analysis of the relationship between their intensity and growth rates increases during periods of turning points for the economic development of the country. During Soviet times, such studies appeared in the 1960s and late 1980s. First of all, it is necessary to note the work of L. S. Kazinets, who proposed a method for statistical measurements of structural changes, which is still used today. The author has developed a number of indicators, of which the following coefficient is most often used in economic literature:

Alexander Nikolaevich LYAKIN - Doctor of Economics. Sciences, Professor of the Department of Economic Theory and Economic Policy, Faculty of Economics, St. Petersburg State University In 1980, he graduated from the Faculty of Economics of Leningrad State University. In 1984, he defended his candidate’s dissertation, and in 2003, his doctoral dissertation. In 2005 he received the title of professor. Research interests: corporate governance, privatization, government regulation and economic policy. Author of more than 80 scientific works, including four monographs (one individual) and two textbooks (co-authored); e-mail: anlyakin@ mail.ru

K = I\hi xi-1\,

where Xc is the share of the ¿-th industry in the gross indicator in the period,

Xts-1 > 0; x, > 0; E xi-1 = E x!(= 1; n - number of structure elements.

At the end of the 1980s, a number of works appeared in which structural changes were associated with the intensification of production. The formulation of the question in the works of that period had many similarities with today’s. Crucial importance for long-term sustainable economic growth is attached to the formation of reproductive proportions that ensure the efficient use of resources.

To calculate the coefficients of structural changes, along with the already mentioned coefficient of average deviations of the elements of the structure of L. S. Kazinets, the following are actively used in economic statistics: the integral coefficient of K. Gatev:

Tx,2 +±chi-12

Xts-\ > 0; x, > 0; E xi-\ = E x, = 1; n - number of structure elements;

criterion of V. M. Ryabtsev:

where x is the share of the ¿-th industry in the gross indicator in the period

Xts-\ > 0; x, > 0; E x, -\ = E x, = 1; n - number of structure elements.

All the above coefficients are based on the principle of measurability of structural changes through the assessment of the deviation of the specific weight and share of the corresponding element of the structure in a given period of time compared to the previous one. In this case, either the average deviation of the difference in the specific weights of the elements of the population (1) or the standard deviation of the difference in the specific weights, related to the sum of the specific weights (2) and (3), is calculated. In any case, the indices are constructed in such a way that if the structure remains unchanged, then their value will be zero, and the higher the index value, the more radical shifts occur in the structure of the population.

However, all these methods for assessing structural changes do not provide qualitative characteristics of the ongoing processes - whether the structure is becoming more complex, the economy is diversifying or, conversely, it is being simplified, whether the share of industries with high added value is increasing or decreasing - the coefficients show only the intensity of the ongoing shifts.

The main problems in calculating any coefficients characterizing structural changes are determining the set of industries used for calculation and overcoming difficulties caused by changes in statistical methodology over the period under review and leveling out fluctuations in relative prices. The absolute values of the coefficients calculated for the aggregated sectoral structure or for sectors and sub-sectors of the economy will obviously not coincide. Thus, if during the period under review there were significant and multidirectional changes within the sector across its constituent industries and sub-sectors, they could cancel each other out, and the share of the sector itself in GDP in this case changed little. Then the coefficients calculated for the enlarged sectoral structure will show minor shifts, and the coefficients calculated for industries and sub-sectors of the economy will record pronounced shifts. However, what is of interest is not so much the absolute value of the indicators as their dynamics, which characterize changes in the intensity of structural changes in the economy. Accordingly, it is necessary to assess whether the nature of the information obtained from the dynamics of the coefficients will change depending on the detail of the industry structure and the selected coefficient. The values of the correlation coefficients between the dynamics of the coefficients calculated by the shares in GDP of 15 sectors of the economy in current prices from 2003 to 2011 and by the share of 62 sectors and subsectors of the economy in GDP for the same period in 2008 prices (table) show their consistency changes. The values of the correlation coefficients between the series of coefficients of structural changes, calculated in various ways, for a more or less detailed set of industries in current and constant prices range from 0.829 to 1, i.e., regardless of the calculated indicator, the intensity of structural changes in the economy receives the same assessment .

Dynamics of coefficients characterizing structural changes in the Russian economy by type of economic activity from 2003 to 2011 (for 15 sectors and in detailed development for 62 types of economic activity)

Years Coefficients 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

K G (15) 0.0315 0.0301 0.0287 0.0373 0.0398 0.0374 0.0386 0.024 0.0141

K G (62) - 0.0027 0.0014 0.0027 0.0032 0.0012 0.0031 0.0009 0.0005

K K (15) 0.0031 0.0025 0.0027 0.0031 0.0036 0.003 0.0034 0.0022 0.0013

K K (62) - 0.0011 0.0008 0.0009 0.0012 0.0009 0.0014 0.0007 0.0005

K R (15) 0.0222 0.0213 0.0203 0.0264 0.0281 0.0264 0.0273 0.017 0.010

K R (62) - 0.0369 0.0261 0.0369 0.0401 0.028 0.0394 0.0214 0.0161

Calculated by: .

Russian macroeconomic statistics do not allow directly calculating comparable values of structural change indices for the period from the beginning of market reforms (1992) to the present due to Rosstat changing its accounting methodology. Until 2004, the calculation was carried out by branches of production; since 2002, it has been carried out by type of economic activity. Accordingly, comparison

The dynamics of output and structural changes occurring in the economy have to be divided into two intervals: 1992-2003 and 2003-2011. Nevertheless, this comparison is interesting due to a number of problems being solved.

First, it allows you to understand when the most significant changes occur in the economy - during periods of growth or decline. Accordingly, it is possible to assess whether shifts in economic structure are the result of deliberate economic policies, or whether they are due to adaptation to market pressures. If changes in industry structure increase with economic growth, it can be assumed that this is a consequence of investment directed in accordance with established priorities. Conversely, an increase in the intensity of industry shifts during a recession indicates that the economy is adapting to changes in the structure of demand.

Secondly, it is necessary to assess the nature of the structural changes occurring in the Russian economy during periods of boom and bust. In Fig. Figure 1 shows the dynamics of the Russian Federation’s GDP and the coefficient of structural changes, which is used as the Gatev integral coefficient. From the above data it is clear that the acceleration of structural changes begins during periods of economic decline; these processes occurred on a particularly large scale during the period of transformation recession (1991-1996) and during the crisis of 1998. At the same time, sustainable growth leads to stabilization of the economic structure, the coefficient of structural changes becomes sedentary. In the early 1990s, there was a contraction of the material production sectors and a rapid expansion of the service sector, primarily trade, activities to ensure the functioning of the market and finance, credit, and insurance.

Changes in the structure of the economy during the crisis of 2008-2009. do not look particularly impressive, but still during this period they accelerate in relation to previous years. At the same time, during the period of economic growth (2003-2007), when the tasks of strategic development, modernization of the economy, and its transition to innovative development were primarily set, the structure of the economy changed slightly.

Rice. 1. Dynamics of Russia's GDP and the coefficient of structural changes.

Legend: change in GDP (in % compared to the previous year),

V-Kt (by the share of added value of industries in GDP),

Kt (by the share of added value of economic activities in GDP). Calculated by: .

It is also of interest to compare the indicators of structural changes in output and employment (Fig. 2). As shown in the graph, the labor market in the Russian economy adapts to the new demand structure with a delay of three to five years. Tectonic shifts in the structure of output in the early 1990s led to a large-scale redistribution of employment in 1997. The response to the acceleration of structural changes after the 1998 crisis was a significant intersectoral redistribution of labor in 2002.

Rice. 2. Dynamics of coefficients of structural shifts in the added value of industries in GDP and shifts in the structure of employment.

Legend: □ Kt (employment by industry) (left scale),

Kt (production account by industry at current prices) (right scale).

Calculated by: .

The nature of structural changes in the Russian economy

It is important to understand not only the relationship between economic dynamics and the intensity of structural changes, but, mainly, the direction of the latter: whether, as a result of changes in output, employment, capital flows between industries, there is a movement towards a modern production structure that allows generating innovations and developing on their basis, Or do structural changes result in a simplification of the economy, loss of diversity and potential for further growth?

An attempt to assess the direction of the process of structural changes in the economy of a number of developed countries (USA, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Finland) was made by A. Akayev, A. Sarygulov, V. Sokolov. They used linear attractors as an analysis tool, i.e., in fact, a linear trend, deviation from which is used as an indicator of structural changes. At the same time, the grouping of industries is arbitrary. Combining into one group the “established industries” of construction, trade, mining and transport, which fluctuated in different directions and with different intensity during the period under review, does not provide much insight into structural changes. Using Linear

trends certainly shows the direction of the process, but is not suitable for its forecasting and assessment. The authors themselves conclude that “the advantages (of linear attractors) are clarity and simplicity of content. At the same time, simple forms of attractors, for example linear ones, do not always reflect the extent of changes in structural shifts. In this context, the issue of adapting more complex forms of attractors in relation to the characteristics of economic processes is still awaiting its solution.”

An interesting approach to assessing structural changes was proposed in the work of O. V. Spasskaya. The intensity of structural changes is proposed to be assessed through changes in the angular distance between the vectors of the structure of the economy in the initial and final periods. Using this indicator, the author of this work was able to prove the existence of a connection between the rate of economic growth and the intensity of structural changes. The proposed indicator of the intensity of structural changes, normalized so that its values range from 0 to 1, is as follows:

where Xc is the share of the ¿-th industry in the gross indicator in the period

Within the framework of this approach, it becomes possible to evaluate the quality of shifts. If, in the course of changing the structure of the economy, it comes to a certain desired state, then “structural changes associated with approaching the standard can be considered positive, and changes leading to moving away from the standard can be considered negative.”

Unfortunately, the reference state of the structure is specified exclusively subjectively, and if it is introduced, then any of the coefficients of structural changes can be quite successfully used to assess the approach to it. In this case, the data used as a reference structure is substituted for shares of the base period, and the closer to zero the calculated indicator is, the closer the structure of our economy is to the reference one.

The structure of the economy is determined by many factors related to the characteristics of historical development, the degree of involvement in world economic relations, its place in the global division of labor, and the level of economic development. The last factor is the most significant. Over the past half century, the structure of developed countries has changed unidirectionally and had a clearly defined character - the share of the extractive sector (agriculture, fishing, forestry, mining industry) and manufacturing industry has been decreasing, the share of the service sector has been growing, especially industries related to the reproduction of human potential (medical care , education, recreational services) and science.

Thus, in the USA from 1950 to 2010, the share of added value of the extractive sector in GDP decreased from 9.4 to 2.7%, the manufacturing industry decreased from 27 to 11.7%, while the share of health care and education increased from 2 up to 8.7% (calculated by: ). From 1997 to 2009 in 27 EU countries, the share of agriculture in GDP

decreased from 3.7 to 2.4%, industry - from 19.8 to 14.9%, the service sector increased by 5.7%. The decline in the share of material production sectors is not accompanied by a fall in the absolute size of their output; moreover, the growth of added value produced in these countries occurs due to the complication of ongoing production. During the period from 1995 to 2010, the highest growth rates in European industry were demonstrated, in descending order, by sub-sectors such as optical instruments and photographic equipment, medical equipment, and motors. During the same period, the production of magnetic and optical media, textiles, and clothing declined at the fastest pace.

The structure of the GDP of countries with a similar level of economic development in terms of the ratio of the main sectors is largely the same. Accordingly, the sectoral structure of value added in US GDP in 1961 can be used as a reference. During this period, US GDP per capita was about $16,000 in 2008 prices, which corresponds to the GDP per capita of the Russian Federation in 2008 according to Purchasing power parity, the population was 180.6 million people. In addition, the countries are comparable in terms of territory and natural resources. Calculation of the adjusted Gatev index, which uses the share of the relevant sectors in US GDP in 1961 as the base period, shows the following picture (Fig. 3).

Figure 3. Dynamics of coefficients of structural changes in the Russian economy in relation to the structure of the US economy in 1961.

It is easy to see that throughout the entire period under review, the structure of the Russian economy was approaching the American one with a similar level of development. It is important to note that during 1990-1995. This process occurred at a rapid pace; it was during this period that the most profound structural changes in the Russian economy were characteristic, due to the transition from directive planning to market distribution of resources. Then some stabilization and slowdown of structural changes occur, and starting from the period of recovery growth in the 2000s, the convergence of economic structures continues.

Despite the changes taking place, the discrepancies remain quite significant, and in some sectors they are increasing. The share of material production sectors is approaching the American structure of the economy “from above.” Although to date the share of industry, agriculture, and transport in the GDP of the Russian Federation exceeds similar shares in the US GDP of a comparable level of development, they are quickly approaching each other. If we take into account that in the structure of Russian industry the share of the extractive industry is four times higher than that in the US economy, this means that the weight of the Russian manufacturing industry in creating GDP is already inferior to the American one at a similar level of economic development (Fig. 4).

Rice. 4. Dynamics of the shares of material production industries in Russia’s GDP from 1990 to 2004 in comparison with the shares of the corresponding industries in the US economy in 1961.

Calculated by: .

In the service sector, Russia surpasses the United States in terms of the share of trade and financial services in GDP, but is significantly inferior in science and scientific services. A sharp jump in the share of trade in GDP occurred in 1992, which was explained by the peculiarities of the Russian transition period, when the spontaneous development of retail became a condition of survival for the population who had lost wages in industry. The decree on free trade, combined with massive forced leave, payment of wages in kind, along with other troubles of that time, explain this dynamics. But the subsequent excess of the share of the relevant industries over the American counterpart becomes a reflection of the systemic problems of the commodity economy, in which the volumes of trade and consumption depend on the import of consumer products (Fig. 5). Decline in the share of science and scientific services in the structure of GDP by

in relation to both the Soviet period and the analogue used looks especially alarming at the present time, when movement towards an innovative economy is a necessary condition for maintaining competitiveness.

Trade, catering and procurement

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Rice. 5. Dynamics of the shares of industries in Russia’s GDP from 1990 to 2004 in comparison with the shares of the corresponding industries in the US economy in 1961. Calculated according to: .

The convergence of the structure of the Russian economy with the corresponding analogue of the United States fifty years ago is accompanied by the loss of a number of industries at high stages of processing and a decrease in the output of manufacturing industries with high added value. In developed countries, a decrease in the share of manufacturing industries occurs against the backdrop of an increase in absolute production volumes and the displacement of low-tech industries by high-tech ones, and the expansion of employment in high-productivity industries that require skilled labor. In Russia, the movement towards a new economic structure is occurring at an accelerated pace due to a reduction in the absolute size of output, primarily in industries at high stages of processing - mechanical engineering, instrument making, electronics, etc. The change in the structure of the economy occurs under the pressure of external competition, both due to the displacement of Russian products from external markets, and through the consistent loss of the domestic market. The periods of the deepest decline in the Russian economy were simultaneously periods of large-scale changes in its sectoral structure, while the rapid growth of the last decade was accompanied by its conservation. That is, investment and expansion of output did not lead to qualitative changes. In order to ensure changes in the sectoral structure in the desired direction, primarily for the restoration and development of industrial potential, targeted measures are needed to influence the structure of the economy - what is traditionally called industrial policy.

Industrial policy in catching up development

The need for state participation in solving problems of development priorities, selecting the most promising projects and areas of investment, creating most favored nation treatment for individual industries and firms

in the innovation sphere is by no means generally recognized. In addition to the differences caused by the initial positions of researchers in relation to the advisability of government intervention in economic life, recommendations on the forms and degree of government influence on the economic structure differ for the conditions of an innovative economy and the modernization of backward production within the framework of a catching-up development model. Since in the countries of the developed center there is a “groping” for new areas of activity, the creation of new needs and forms of satisfying them, government intervention in the search and selection of economic development priorities causes serious criticism. For an economy of catching-up development, the state sets the structural priorities of the advanced economies being copied, and without active pressure on its part, business entities are not interested in investing in highly competitive and high-risk projects that require significant costs.

Traditionally, arguments about the advisability of government influence on the economic structure are justified by the presence of market failures. Incomplete information when making investment decisions leads to an increase in risks as the payback period of the project increases and the radicality of the innovations underlying it increases. The incentives for private capital to invest are determined by the expected return on capital and the increase in the value of the company; the growth of added value in the economy as a whole for the investor is an external effect that is not taken into account in calculating the return on investment of the project. For the national economy as a whole, the quality of employment, demand for educational services, and research and development are important parameters that determine the desired direction of industry changes. In addition, real life differs significantly from the premises of classical models, and market competition in the world market is limited by the influence of national states, existing agreements between major market players, monopoly effects, etc. Market mechanisms for restoring equilibrium are effective when the economy deviates slightly from the optimal state. Serious disturbances in the economic structure and the implementation of structural changes require government action. At the same time, the elimination of large imbalances by market means can lead to such scales of social and economic losses during the transformation that exceed the potential benefits and/or “strength of the socio-political system.”

Objections to the advisability of developing and implementing industrial policy are based on the assumption of the efficiency of the market in solving problems of resource allocation and taking into account losses generated by government intervention. If we take into account the bureaucratization of procedures for developing and making decisions, allocating funds and controlling their use, as well as corruption affecting the selection of industries and enterprises that are most important from the point of view of long-term development, it becomes obvious that the practice of implementing industrial policy gives rise to no less problems than the practice of market development.

In real practice, the problem of the “second best solution” arises, since both the forces of the free market and government actions lead to suboptimal allocation of resources, and the quantitative ratio of losses from incorrect or untimely

The number of decisions made about the direction of structural change is immeasurable. As review works on the history of industrial policy show, in one form or another, state influence on the direction of industrial development, protection of the domestic market from unfair (or more effective) external competition, and the cultivation of “national champions” was characteristic of developed countries throughout the 20th century. The combination of industrial policy measures and support for competition changed during this period in all countries, and their optimal balance was sought empirically. The selection of industrial policy measures that are adequate to the situation is based more on empirical “groping” than on scientific justification. D. Rodrik, in an article with the expressive title “Industrial Policy: Don’t Ask Why, Ask How,” based on a review of the experiences of three developing countries, comes to the conclusion that “various objections to industrial policy are less strong than they seem at first glance. They are based on unexamined assumptions about the nature of economic development and the capabilities of governments. They distort what empirical reality actually shows. They ignore the fact that many (if not most) developing countries already have industrial policies, even if they don't call them that." In another work, D. Rodrik highlights stylized facts characterizing economic development, contrary to accepted ideas about the beneficial nature of specialization and the international division of labor:

Economic development requires diversification, not specialization;

Only countries with large industrial sectors were classified as fast-growing countries;

Increased growth is associated with industrialization;

The areas of specialization are not strictly determined by the endowment of factors;

Countries that exported more sophisticated goods grew faster.

Industrial policy in these conditions becomes one of the factors of economic development (or regression), and the measures for its implementation become noticeably more radical and impair the functioning of the market mechanism than in the conditions of developed countries. Among the instruments for implementing the industrial policy of catching-up development countries are measures of protectionist protection of national producers, which raise the greatest objections from the point of view of classical economic theory.

The discrepancy between theory and practice on the issue of the advisability of protecting national production, about which F. List wrote at the beginning of the 19th century, persists to this day. “If import duties require sacrifices of value, these sacrifices are balanced by the acquisition of productive power, which provides the nation for the future not only with an infinitely greater amount of material wealth, but, in addition, with industrial independence in case of war.”

Rejection of protectionism in its overt forms of customs protection and preferences for national production is becoming an axiom of modern economic thought. Theoretical works that question the benefits of international competition and the openness of the economy to national development a priori fall on the periphery of economic theory. Meanwhile, there is empirical evidence showing that the relationship between growth rates and customs

there is a positive relationship with protectionism. Thus, econometric calculations for a wide sample of countries in different historical periods, carried out by V. Popov, show that there is a relationship between customs duties and economic growth rates, the increase in the share of exports in GDP is positively related to economic growth rates, and import customs duties do not affect share of exports in GDP. “The phenomenon of an “economic miracle” - rapid growth for two decades or more - in the post-war period was almost always associated with an increase in the share of investment and exports in GDP and almost never with a low level of customs protection. Contrary to what would seem to be common sense, it was the protectionist countries that increased the share of exports in GDP the fastest and became “dragons” and “tigers,” while the countries that practiced free trade did not surprise the world with either a rapid increase in exports or high growth rates ". This is also confirmed by the long historical retrospective of the economic development of the countries of the rich North, the fast-growing East and the poor South, given in the work of E. Reinert.

A review of empirical work on the relationship between economic growth and trade barriers undertaken by D. Rodrik and F. Rodriguez, along with their own calculations, led the authors to the following conclusion: “Even if the negative relationship between trade restrictions and economic growth is convincingly confirmed, we doubt that this the problem would continue to generate so much empirical research... The tendency to greatly exaggerate the systematic evidence in favor of trade openness has had a significant impact on policy around the world. Our concern is that prioritizing open trade has generated expectations that are unlikely to be met, and it may have crowded out other institutional reforms with potentially greater benefits."

The question is not the need or expediency of industrial policy, but the forms of its implementation and the mechanisms through which, given existing restrictions, the implementation of strategic structural goals can be ensured. On the one hand, these should be measures similar to the European practice of supporting the competitiveness of national production through the creation of effective institutions, the removal of administrative barriers, support for science and personnel training. On the other hand, it is necessary to adapt to new conditions and create demand for domestically produced products, stimulate the export of national corporations, and form and bring “national champions” to global markets.

Conclusion

The ambitious goals formulated in the documents on innovation policy and the development strategy of Russia until 2020 can only be realized if the basis for building an innovative economy, for the achievement of which large-scale budget investments are expected, becomes an industrial policy aimed at the consistent formation of an optimal industry structure. At the same time, measures to stimulate supply by removing barriers to market competition and creating general favorable conditions for carrying out

industrial production by stimulating scientific and technological developments and personnel training, characteristic of developed countries, require serious budget investments and an already established highly efficient competitive economy. The current state of the Russian economy suggests direct ways to influence the formation of the industry structure, characteristic of developing economies - stimulating demand for the products of priority sectors of national industry, promoting the concentration of capital and the emergence of “national champions” (possibly to the detriment of domestic competition, financial and political support for exports) , creating favorable conditions for investing in priority sectors. The only criterion for the appropriateness of the instruments used should be the long-term interests of the country's development and the impact on the level of well-being of its population.

Widespread demand for innovation is generated primarily by the manufacturing industry, and its mass industries. The challenge is to restore the country's manufacturing industry. Initiating investment growth requires government monitoring of the economic structure. It is necessary to achieve a consistent expansion of the added value of the manufacturing industry in output and exports. The goal should be to consistently increase the share of high-tech industries in industrial output. The expansion of high-tech production, among other things, solves the problem of labor shortages and the refusal of mass migration.

Expansion of high-tech exports is most realistic through entry into value chains, even without control over this process. The clearly expressed focus on the development of a narrow group of industries by all the world's largest economies creates the most severe competitive environment in these areas. It is necessary to look for niches in which Russian production has corresponding advantages on the world market, or to join the chains as suppliers of certain technologies, components, and components.

Literature

1. Amosov A. On the discussion about new industrialization // Economist. 2009. No. 6. P. 14-29.

2. Grandberg Z. Neo-industrial paradigm and the law of vertical integration // Economist. 2009. No. 1. P. 37-44.

3. Kuzyk B., Yakovets Yu. Alternatives to structural dynamics // Economist. 2007. No. 1. P. 3-14.

4. Petrov A., Pospelov I. Innovation-breakthrough path of development: forecast parameters // Economist. 2007. No. 1. P. 15-28.

5. Glazyev S. Yu. On the tasks of structural policy in the context of global technological shifts. Part 2 // Economic science of modern Russia. 2007. No. 4. P. 31-44.

6. Navoi A. Russian crises of 1998 and 2008: find 10 differences // Questions of Economics. 2009. No. 2. P. 24-38.

7. Kazinets L. S. Growth rates and structural shifts in the economy. M.: Economics, 1981. 184 p.

8. Kazinets L. S. Measuring structural shifts in economics. M.: Economics, 1969. 167 p.

9. Berkovich L. A. Interrelation of processes of intensification of production and structural shifts in the economy. Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1989. 154 p.

10. Vintrova R., Neshporova A. Structural shifts in the process of economic intensification // Proceedings of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Ser. "Economy". 1987. No. 2. P. 60-73.

11. Technical progress and structural shifts in the economy / ed. K.K. Valtukha, V.I. Pavlova. Novosibirsk: IEIOPP, 1987. 162 p.

12. Rosstat. URL: http://www.gks.ru/wps/wcm/connect/rosstat/rosstatsite/main/account/tab11b.xls (access date: October 3, 2012).

13. Russian statistical yearbook. 2001: Stat. Sat. / Goskomstat of Russia. M., 2001.

14. Russian statistical yearbook. 2006: Stat. Sat. / Goskomstat of Russia. M., 2006.

15. Akaev A., Sarygulov A., Sokolov V. Linear attractors as a measure for assessing structural changes // Economic Policy 2010. No. 4. P. 40-54.

16. Spasskaya O. V. Macroeconomic methods for studying and measuring structural changes // Scientific works of the Institute of National Economic Forecasting of the Russian Academy of Sciences. M.: MAKS Press, 2003. P. 20-39.

17. Bureau of Economic Analysis. URL: / http://www.bea.gov/iTable /iTable.cfm?ReqID=5&step=1 (access date: 10/3/2012).

18. EU Industrial Structure 2011-Trend and Performance. Luxembourg: Publications Office of European Union, 2011. 148 p.

19. Kalinin A. Building a balanced industrial policy: issues of structuring goals, objectives, tools // Questions of Economics. 2012. No. 4. pp. 132-146.

20. Louver E. Russia: an urgent need for an ambitious industrial policy // RECEP Reports. 2005. No. 5 (9). pp. 113-148.

21. Simachev Yu., Kuzyk M., Ivanov D. Russian financial development institutions: the right road? // Economic Issues. 2012. No. 7. P. 4-29.

22. Andrianov K. N. The need for the development and implementation of industrial policy of the Russian Federation // Economic journal. 2008. No. 3(13). pp. 60-68.

23. Eickhoff N. Policy to support competition, or “New” industrial policy // News of the St. Petersburg University of Economics and Finance. 2011. No. 3. P. 5-11.

24. Spissinger K., Block W., McGee R. W. No Policy is Good Policy: A Radical Proposal for US Industrial Policy // Glendale Law Review. 1999. Vol. 17, N 1. P. 47-58.

25. Foreman-Peck J. Industrial Policy in Europe in the 20th Century // EIB PAPERS. 2006. Vol. 11, N 1. P. 36-62.

26. Maincent E., Navarro L. A Policy for Industrial Champions: From Picking Winners to Fostering Excellence and the Growth of Firms // Industrial Policy and Economic Reforms Papers. 2006. N 2. URL: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/_getdocument.cfm?doc_id=4187 (date of access: October 10, 2012).

27. Mosconi F. The Age of “European Champions” a New Chance for EU Industrial Policy // The European Union Review. 2006. Vol. 11, N 1. R. 29-59.

28. Rodrik D. Industrial Policy Don't Ask Why, Ask How // Middle East Development Journal. 2008. Demo Issue. R. 1-29.

29. Rodrik D. Industrial Development: Some Stylized Facts and policy directions // Industrial Development for the 21st Century: Sustainable Development Perspectives. New York, 2007. pp. 9-15.

30. List F. “National system of political economy.” Count S. Yu. Witte “About nationalism. National Economy and Friedrich List." D. I. Mendeleev “Intelligible tariff, or Study on the development of Russian industry in connection with its general customs tariff of 1891.” M.: Europe, 2005. 384 p.

31. Popov V. Technology of an economic miracle: an unconventional view of protectionism, export orientation and economic growth // FORECAST. 2006. No. 2 (6). pp. 226-252.

32. Reinert E. S. How rich countries became rich, and why poor countries remain poor / trans. from English N. Avtonomova; edited by V. Avtonomova. Series "Economic Theory". M.: NRU-HSE, 2011. 384 p.

33. Rodriguez F., Rodrik D. Trade Policy and Economic Growth: A Skeptic's Guide to the Cross-National Evidence // NBER Macroeconomics Annual 2000, 2001. Vol. 15. P. 261-338. URL: http:/ /www.nber.org/books/bern01-1 (date of access: October 8, 2012).

34. Blyakhman L. S. Post-industrial capitalism: challenges of modernization and lessons for Russia // Vestn. St. Petersburg un-ta. Ser. 5: Economics. 2011. Issue. 4. pp. 3-21.

35. Pakhomova N.V., Smirnov S.A. Innovative economy: structural priorities and indicators // Vestn. St. Petersburg un-ta. Ser. 5: Economics. 2011. Issue. 3. pp. 18-30.