State industrial policy and its concepts presentation. Presentation on the topic: Features of state regulation of material development. The institutional foundations of industrial policy include arguments in favor of the

By discipline: "Institutional Economics"

Topic: "State industrial policy"

Student of group X - M (c) - 31 V.V. Severova

Teacher Danilchik T.L.

Khabarovsk 2014

Introduction

1. Competitiveness

2. Improving market mechanisms

3. Formation of the technological base

4. Carrot and stick for investment

Conclusion

Literature

Introduction

By the nature of the general orientation of state influence on the country's industry, industrial policy. They are classified as defensive, focused on preserving the existing industrial structure, maintaining employment, protecting national firms from foreign competition, adaptive, aimed at adapting the country's industrial structure to the shifts in the demand structure and the changed 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 PP) 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 1990s. to indicate the regulatory role of the state in the industrial and technological development of the country. In the era of the administrative-planned economy in the USSR, there was no need for such a term, because the entire economic system essentially meant PP. There was no alternative from the state system for making decisions on investment by private business; the entire strategy of economic development of industries and intersectoral complexes was determined centrally from a single economic center. In the system of ideas of the market economy, that was a super-industrial policy with its own achievements, shortcomings and even failures. The need to identify the role of the state in the development and implementation of a strategy for the long-term development of priority sectors in the conditions of the dominance of market relations arose due to the completely obvious "market failures" in the field of projects designed not for short-term profits. Among the directions of state industrial policy, we will consider the main ones, 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;

state opportunities 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 of the modern developed market economy as the increasing intellectualization of industrial production, the strengthening of the role of the innovation principle and the transnationalization of the activities of industrial firms.

As a result, the competitiveness of the country's industry is increasingly dependent on factors such as the quality of labor resources, the strength of ties between industrial firms, universities and research institutes, the ability to creatively master foreign technologies, the rate 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 to 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. Obviously, proactive state industrial policy must be supported by a purposeful education policy. For countries with economies in transition, the most priority areas include a sharp expansion of training of specialists in the field of management, marketing and commercial law. With all the importance of financial support from the state for fundamental science and the highest priority programs of applied scientific research, a very large positive role can be played by the organizational activity of the state in the following areas. First, the creation of state structures focused on identifying potential industrial consumers of knowledge accumulated by state research institutes and universities. Second, government coordination of R&D programs involving industrial enterprises and university laboratories, as well as government research organizations. An important factor in maintaining the competitiveness of the 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, the state's activities in this regard are implemented in the field of macroeconomic policy, the success of which depends on the ability to create a favorable investment climate by means of monetary and fiscal policy. In addition, due to the fact that the lack of financial resources of small innovative 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 promote the expansion of financing opportunities for innovative business. The state has the ability to significantly influence such conditions for the competitiveness of the country's industry as the presence of a capacious internal market and strict requirements of domestic consumers of industrial products to their quality characteristics. All developed market economies, in order to maintain the competitiveness of their industries, stimulate the demand for high-tech products through public procurement in sectors owned by the state or under strict state regulation (electricity, primarily nuclear, telecommunications, aviation and railway transport), as well as to provide the military needs of the country. At the same time, discrimination against foreign companies - manufacturers of similar products is widely practiced.

... Improving market mechanisms

The state's activities to improve the efficiency of market mechanisms and mitigate their inherent imperfections is the second important component of modern industrial policy. The areas in which the imperfections of market coordination mechanisms are manifested are different: These are, firstly, the production of public goods and services (for example, scientific research, health services, the production of weapons, 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. Second, the imperfections of the market mechanism are associated with the consequences of the 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. Third, competition through innovation can hardly satisfy the principles of perfect competition. "Competition through new products and processes," asserts the work of American economists, "is imperfect, both in essence and in results. Without the bait of higher returns, there would be no incentive to innovate." Since the development of industry is becoming more and more innovative, and innovation competition, in fact, is imperfect, with huge external effects, a strong monopoly element, the possibilities for the development of industrial production based solely on market coordination mechanisms seem to be very limited. Finally, fourth, the market economy is characterized by complex problems that make it difficult to allocate resources with an emphasis on the long term.

In a market economy, comprehensive information support for industrial firms is a prerequisite for their survival and efficient operation. A huge work on the collection and publication of information of an economic, scientific, technical, demographic and similar nature, which is widely used by industrial firms in making investment and other decisions, is carried out in the countries of a developed market economy by government departments, although they, of course, are not the only source of information used. information firms.

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

... Formation of a technological base

It is also possible to influence the achievement of dynamic competitive advantages of the state industrial policy by influencing the technologies used in the country's industry and, accordingly, its sectoral structure. The influence of the state on the technological structure of industrial production was most clearly manifested during 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 unequivocal and unconditional assessments of the role of state entrepreneurship in the development of industrial production. If we assume that the means of public policy can increase the national income of the country at the expense of its competitors by stimulating technologies and industries that bring higher "rent" than other technologies and industries, then obviously the existence of such an opportunity for a long time contradicts the conditions of functioning systems of competitive markets and industries with free cross-country and cross-sectoral capital flow.

The creation of state-owned industrial companies is not the only one, and in modern conditions it is far from the most optimal instrument of state influence on the technological structure of the country's industry.

... Carrot and stick for investment

Another equally 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 investments;

containment of prices for equipment by means of preferential customs duties on its imports;

affecting interest rates and keeping them below market levels.

Bank credit 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. Domestic sources (retained earnings and depreciation charges) and bank loans played a dominant role. Public financial institutions have played an important role in financing investment programs in many dynamically developing countries. The influence of the state on price proportions in order to stimulate the investment process was not limited to the regulation of interest rates. The World Bank experts point out that in these countries, tax, tariff and exchange rate policies not only removed some of the investment risk from investor firms and moderately suppressed interest rates, but also controlled capital imports, and also maintained relatively low prices for investment goods. ... At the same time, the possibilities of using price imbalances created by state regulation in order to stimulate the investment process and economic growth of the country are significantly narrowed as its involvement in world economic relations intensifies. And one more option for stimulating investment policy aimed at developing the real sector of the economy is the use of the tax system. There are two major directions of the state tax policy that can have a significant impact on the development of the country's industry.

First, by influencing through taxes on the level of savings of the population, amortization funds of firms and their retained earnings, i.e. on the size of potential sources of financing for 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 in terms of depreciation, the state is able to influence the ratio between firms' investments in the active and passive part of fixed assets, the rate of reproduction of fixed capital in the country's industry, and stimulate the investment activity of firms on priority state directions, influence the regional placement of industrial investment.

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 of a market economy. At the same time, the peculiarities of the current situation in the economy of our country require that the state should not be limited only by these functions.

Overcoming negative trends in industrial production in Russia and creating the prerequisites for fundamental changes in its structure is impossible without a meaningful and purposeful state industrial policy, and in the most favorable version, this policy should serve as a tool for implementing a strategy of industrial development of the country 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 range of technological and socio-political factors.

In socio-political terms, the current situation in Russia is determined by a sharp income differentiation between a small group of the population and its main mass. Over the years of reforms in Russia, a middle class has not developed, 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, to date, the transformation of the Russian economy has been taking place in the absence of any meaningful strategy for the country's industrial development. In countries with a democratic orientation, the determination of an industrial development strategy is not exclusively the prerogative of central government bodies. This case provides for the active participation of representatives of industrial business circles, trade unions, independent research organizations, regional authorities. At the same time, the central state 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 of important industrial goods, scientific and technical progress, ecological situation, etc., formulate their ideas about the desirable directions of the country's industrial development.

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

We have to admit that at the present time in the executive branch of Russia there is no agency that, in terms of its intellectual potential and authority, is capable of taking on the functions of the initiator and coordinator of the elaboration of the country's industrial development strategy. The development of a public consensus on the vision of the future of Russia is also hampered by the blurring of value attitudes of the bulk of the country's population due to the collapse of the totalitarian atheist state and the negative consequences of the reforms currently being carried out for the majority of the country's population. Recognizing that the elaboration of a strategy for the country's industrial development and an adequate state industrial policy requires colossal collective efforts, we note only some of the contours of such a strategy and policy. The country's industrial development strategy assumes the definition of the main goals in a more or less long-term perspective, the main obstacles to the implementation of these goals and the means of overcoming these obstacles and achieving the set goals. The most important strategic goals of the development of industry in Russia should, as it seems, include the preservation and improvement of the basic elements of the infrastructure of life support, 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 realization of these goals are the continuing development of a deep and protracted general economic and industrial crisis, without any positive shifts in the technological structure of industrial production, an ever-deepening gap between the financial sector and the state of Russian industry, and a growing shortage of investment resources. The state industrial policy of Russia should be focused on overcoming these obstacles and be proactive, relying on the vision of the desired image of the industrial structure in a more or less long-term perspective. As for the technological structure of the Russian industry, it should be built on the basis of a thorough assessment of the available 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, own production potential is needed and what level should it reach; in what technologies does Russia have a chance to achieve a breakthrough and strengthen its competitiveness; the satisfaction of what needs is advisable through the import of industrial products and technologies. Based on this, the following directions of the state's activity in the framework of industrial policy can be determined. An active, coordinating activity of government departments in the field of technological forecasting and the development of a set of criteria is needed, on the basis of which the priority technologies for the Russian industry should be selected.

The state can help to increase the technological potential of the Russian industry, as by creating closed, poorly accessible to foreign competition systems "research and development - production of high-tech products in Russian companies - large-scale purchases of these products by the state and by stimulating the inflow of foreign capital and technology by allowing foreign companies to manufacture high-tech products in the country and public 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. State funding of basic science and applied research is needed for priority technologies. With all the importance of financial support from the state for fundamental science and the highest priority programs of applied scientific research, an important positive role can be played by the organizational activity of the state in the following areas: creation of state structures focused on identifying potential industrial consumers of knowledge accumulated by state research institutes and universities; coordinating activities of the state for conducting research and development, in which industrial enterprises and university laboratories, as well as state research organizations, participate.

Renewal of the technological structure of Russian industry is possible only in the context of a dynamic investment process, which to a decisive extent depends on the tax, budgetary and monetary policy 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 emission in industrial investment. In this regard, it seems necessary to create state investment development banks, without which a quick exit from the deep investment crisis is hardly possible. A realistic assessment of the potential of the capital market as a source of financing for investment programs requires recognizing that its role in Russia for many years to come is likely to be generally insignificant. Therefore, the state should focus primarily on creating conditions that stimulate its own sources of accumulation in industrial structures (in this regard, the depreciation policy is important), and providing these structures with long-term credit resources.

The critical situation in the 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, capable, due to their technological and managerial potential and financial condition, to play the role of leaders; creation of conditions facilitating the absorption by leaders or their taking control of industrial enterprises that have the technological potential for development, but do not have the financial capabilities to implement it; liquidation of hopeless in all respects industrial enterprises with the simultaneous retraining of their personnel and their employment.

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

The development of social partnership at the level of "government - industry industry associations - trade unions" could help maintain macroeconomic stabilization through the implementation of one or another policy of price and income regulation. With all the dangers that cartelization of industry is fraught with, the creation of industry associations of industrial enterprises such as cartels (on a temporary basis and in the development of clear criteria for the activities of firms belonging to cartels) could help stabilize industrial production and modernize its technological base. Mitigation of negative social consequences caused by changes in the structure of industrial production should become an important direction of the state industrial policy in the coming years. Obviously, this problem will be especially acute in 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 labor force and increase its mobility, as well as to provide sufficient protection against excessive foreign competition in the industries most important from the point of view of maintaining employment. Finally, it is necessary to significantly improve the efficiency of management of industrial enterprises that remain in state ownership.

Conclusion

In recent years, the problem of state influence on the industrial development of the country has acquired great urgency. In this regard, the state industrial policy of Russia, at present, should become an integral part of the state economic policy (GEP), in many respects, ensuring the achievement of its goals. Therefore, the development and implementation of the GSP 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 elaboration of the problem. One of the reasons for the underestimation of the state industrial policy in the management system of the transition economy. is the weakness of the scientific study of the weight of the GSP 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 compete with each other. All the considered concepts differ in the methods of implementation, in the methods of implementation, in the system of goals and values. The need for a holistic state industrial and economic strategy is obvious and relevant during all the years of radical economic reforms. Almost all sane and nationally oriented groups of society are in favor of PP. Against the PP - only the top of the cosmopolitan capital in the largest domestic raw material companies and the ruling bureaucracy serving their interests. Obviously, the absence of PP in the context of the rapid degradation of the industrial base and social conditions of the country is nonsense, explained by the solidarity and organization of its opponents, while its supporters are disunited. The main subject of PP 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, ie. partly replacing the functions of market competition, which liberals always fear so much. In addition, the home-grown interpreters of Hayek-Mises's ideas are so obviously tied to the interests of energy companies embedded in the global market for these products that any talk about PP is perceived by them completely "correctly", because in modern Russian conditions, this means an inevitable redistribution of income from transnational "raw materials producers" in favor of national "industrialists" with the help of the economic power of the state. Therefore, all that the liberals demand from the state is the preservation and strengthening of the "competitive" regime in the economy, "forgetting" that in the conditions of such "competition" energy and raw material monopolies feel most at ease, cheaply buying all the necessary resources inside the country (including labor force and state support in the form, for example, of the notorious severance tax, which created unprecedented opportunities for avoiding taxation of differential rent) and selling finished products at high prices both in the world and in the domestic market. Super profits settle in offshore zones and western banks.

PP issues are real political and economic issues of the theory and practice of reforms, because they affect the fundamental economic interests of the main strata of society. They address the underlying issues of the creation, distribution and appropriation of social wealth. And while economic power is in the hands of "transnationals", the state will diligently bypass the issues of industrial strategy, replacing it with such "important" reforms as the monetization of benefits, the commercialization of science and education, endless shaking up of the administrative apparatus, etc.

industrial policy market mechanism

Literature

1.Zevin L.Z. "Economic structures of different levels in global processes: peculiarities of interaction. Scientific report of IMEPS RAS. - M: EPICON, 2009. P.8-9.

2.Tatarkin A. Industrial policy as a basis for systemic modernization of the Russian economy // Probl. theory and practice of management. - 2011 - N 1. - P.8-21.

.Pilipenko I. Cluster policy in Russia // Society and economy. - 2009 - N 8. - P.28-64.

.Zavadnikov V. Industrial policy in Russia / V. Zavadnikov, Yu. Kuznetsov // Econ. politics. - 2011. - N 3. - S.5-17.

.A.S. Zeltyn State industrial policy in market economies // ECO. - 2012. - N 3. - P.42-60.

.Ivanov V.S. Rational management of the territory as a factor in the development of industrial policy // Microeconomics. - 2009. - No. 5. - S. 124-127.

.Abramov M. On industrial policy and tax regulation // Free thought. - 2009. - N 1. - S.101-116.

.Abramov M.D. Industrial policy and tax regulation // ECO. - 2009. - N 1. - S. 165-173.

Tutoring

Need help exploring a topic?

Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Send a request with the indication of the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

The subject of industrial policy is the state, and not any political power, but the state of the modern type - an abstract corporation with its own legal entity, different from the personality of the rulers, including the government apparatus and the totality of citizens (subjects), but not coinciding with either with the other, 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. Industrial Policy Principles. 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. Industrial Policy Principles. 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 undertaken to influence the activities of economic entities (enterprises, corporations, entrepreneurs, etc.), as well as certain aspects of this activity 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 a manufacturer 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 taken place in recent decades - the development of new production technologies, financial instruments, organizational structures, the globalization of production, trade and finance, an increase in the role of knowledge, information and technology in production processes, etc. - all this makes the traditional view of the object of industrial policy limited. and inadequate.

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

Thus, at the end of the twentieth century, there was a strong conviction that industrial policy in its original sense had practically exhausted itself. The "hard" industrial policy was replaced by the "soft" (liberal) one. Its goal was to ensure the competitiveness of the national economy in an open market, and as the main tool was used 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 made a request to the state for industrial policy, and often in the formats of the 19th - first half of the 20th centuries, testifies to the deepest crisis in the conceptual vision of how economy.

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

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

At first industrial enterprises built in Soviet times and industries formed on their basis offer the state to cover them with a “protectionist umbrella”, reorient them to 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 the conditions of work in the open market and have, as a rule, raw materials specialization. These companies are faced with extreme loads on the country's infrastructure economy, with withdrawals to the budget of a significant share of natural resource rent and the inability to share the budgetary burden with other taxpayers. Therefore, IBGs demand that the state create preferences for them as for the leading sector of the economy - “national champions”.

Thirdly , the authorities of the old industrial regions, having an outdated industry as an economic base, not having an alternative offer of employment for people employed in it, is forced to formulate and implement their own "industrial policy". The regions would like to share responsibility (and, most importantly, funding!) 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 losing its position as a developer and seller of technologies, it demands technological protectionism and preferences for Russian R&D.

Fifth , a special group of agents interested in determining the state position in relation to the national industry is made up of representatives of that sector of the Russian economy that has fully adapted to life in the global market. They insist on abandoning the "hard" industrial policy and on the transition to predominantly indirect state management of the economy with the help of institutional (regulatory) measures. This is not so much opposition to the technological policy of the state as against its separation from the general economic one.

However, it should be borne in mind that the main contradiction, problematizing the possibility of an independent state industrial policy in Russia at the moment, is the contradiction between the local character of most Russian industrial enterprises and the global economy, in which they have already been placed. Since the default of 1998, the weak ruble has created preferences for the Russian industry, which have allowed it to regain (albeit not completely) the national market and facilitate the promotion of certain types of its products on the world. The old industry, designed for the isolation and internal balance of the economy, revived, restored internal ties and demanded resources. However, now the growth reserves of the Russian industry, which were provided by a weak ruble and low compared to world domestic prices for certain types of resources (raw materials, transport and energy services, labor, etc.), have turned out to be practically exhausted. Further economic recovery should be provided by new factors associated with the integration of the Russian economy into the world one.

It can be assumed that in the near future, the main task of the Russian industry will be to integrate into the world market. The whole set of economic agents, from this point of view, it is advisable to divide 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 a shift in the development of the global economy.

Reducing the danger of military conflicts in the world has created conditions for the deployment 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 outstripped the so-called "material" production, constrained by a long process of changing fixed assets. In addition, mastering new technologies required workers with new key skills that could not be instantly trained.

The situation, critical for the old industry, was 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 worldwide universalization of consumption. In low price segments and markets for mass-produced goods, the national industry is forced to compete with the most efficient manufacturer in the world, which sells its products least of all. 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 science-intensive products with a high share of added value and an increase in the purchasing power of employed people, the entire population of the country.

The concept of industrial policy in Russia has its own history and its own specifics, therefore it causes controversy between various representatives of government, business and society. During the period of liberal reforms, industrial policy was understood by many as lobbyism or the return of state control over the economy, characteristic of the Soviet era, which caused a negative attitude even to 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 the achievement of the set goal and the nomination of a new system of institutions, it is subject to transformation, in the process of which a regrouping and redistribution of functions and powers between the corresponding directions and priorities takes place within the state. The creation of flexible, program-targeted institutions for the implementation of national industrial policy seems to be a matter of particular importance.

For a number of reasons, Russia is integrating into the open world market later than other industrially developed ones. The mismatch in the rates of inclusion in the global economy of the Russian industry, systems of circulation, consumption and turnover of finance for the Russian Federation is becoming much more dramatic than for the countries that are “pioneers” of globalization. The old industry and old industrial regions suffer the most in this situation, 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 occur simultaneously and is not a frontal attack on the world market by all industries and enterprises of the national industry. The industry of Russia, previously assembled into a technologically unified complex, on its way to the global market stretched into a long line of enterprises that sometimes solve disparate production and technological, trade and marketing, and financial and management tasks. 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 controls production, in Russia one should expect an explosive growth of retail chains, the development of new forms of market penetration (Internet commerce, catalog trade, franchises, 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 sizes commensurate with the global market. Solving this problem, Russian industrial enterprises will not necessarily have to merge into various holdings, vertically integrated companies. They can be consolidated on the basis of a network principle as a kind of metacorporation of suppliers and subcontractors, as well as competitors within homogeneous clusters.

Src = "https://present5.com/presentation/1/175150398_455077893.pdf-img/175150398_455077893.pdf-1.jpg" alt = "(! LANG:> Presentation on the topic: Features of state regulation of the development of material production ("> Презентация на тему: Особенности государственного регулирования развития материального производства { Выполнили студенты: Саая Б. , Сымбелов С. , Кунгаа А. Проверил (а): Бадмаева Д. Б!}

Src = "https://present5.com/presentation/1/175150398_455077893.pdf-img/175150398_455077893.pdf-2.jpg" alt = "(! LANG:> Plan: 1. Scope of material production and objectives of government regulation; 2 ..."> План: 1. Сфера материального производства и задачи государственного регулирования; 2. Особенности современного госзаказа, его содержания; 3. Государственная промышленная политика, ее концепции; 4. Государственное регулирование агропромышленного комплекса.!}

Src = "https://present5.com/presentation/1/175150398_455077893.pdf-img/175150398_455077893.pdf-3.jpg" alt = "(! LANG:> State regulation of the development of the material sphere is relevant at all times, it forms the basis"> Государственное регулирование развития материальной сферы актуально во все времена, оно составляет основу жизни людей, создает условия для развития непроизводственной сферы - здравоохранение, образования и т. д. Чем выше эффективнее функционирует материальное производство, тем выше уровень развития экономики и тем больше национальный доход. Материальное производство - производство, напрямую связанное с созданием материальных благ, удовлетворяющих определённые потребности человека и общества. Материальному производству противопоставляется непроизводственная сфера, которая не имеет своей целью изготовление вещественных ценностей. Такое разделение, в основном, характерно для марксистской теории.!}

Src = "https://present5.com/presentation/1/175150398_455077893.pdf-img/175150398_455077893.pdf-4.jpg" alt = "(! LANG:> 1. The sphere of material production and the tasks of state regulation;"> 1. Сфера материального производства и задачи государственного регулирования; В соответствии с классификацией отраслей экономики в состав материального производства включены 14 крупных отраслей: промышленность; ·сельское хозяйство; ·лесное хозяйство; ·грузовой транспорт; ·связь по обслуживанию производства; ·строительство; ·торговля и общественное питание; ·материально-техническое обеспечение и сбыт; ·заготовка продукции; ·информационно-вычислительное обслуживание; ·операции с недвижимым имуществом; ·коммерческая деятельность по обеспечению функционирования рынка; ·геология и разведка недр; ·геодезическая и гидрометеорологическая служба.!}

Src = "https://present5.com/presentation/1/175150398_455077893.pdf-img/175150398_455077893.pdf-5.jpg" alt = ""> Задачи государственного регулирования сферы материального производства периодически меняются с учетом генеральной цели государственного регулирования социально-экономического развития страны, изменений во внешнеэкономических связях и мировом хозяйстве Основными задачами государственного регулирования материального производства современной России являются: стабилизация основных показателей развития отраслей материального производства; ·прогрессивная структурная перестройка сферы материального производства путем изменения соотношения между добывающими и перерабатывающими отраслями, повышения роли наукоемких производств, восстановления позиций машиностроительного комплекса ·техническое перевооружение отраслей материального производства; ·взаимовыгодная интеграция в мировую экономику; ·ослабление сырьевой направленности экспорта российских производителей путем увеличения в нем доли продукции обрабатывающих отраслей промышленности; ·повышение качества и конкурентоспособности отечественной продукции на внутреннем и внешнем рынках; ·рационализация размещения субъектов материального производства по регионам страны; ·обеспечение экологической безопасности производства.!}

Src = "https://present5.com/presentation/1/175150398_455077893.pdf-img/175150398_455077893.pdf-6.jpg" alt = "(! LANG:> 2. Government order. Government order is different first of all"> 2. Госзаказ. Государственный заказ отличается прежде всего тем, что закупки и поставки по нему оплачиваются за счет средств налогоплательщиков, которые аккумулированы в соответствующих бюджетах и внебюджетных фондах. Это так называемый принцип "источника средств". При этом совершенно неважно, кто является конкретным получателем продукции - тот, кто ее приобретает или тот, кто является ее конечным потребителем. Например, конечным получателем закупаемых в рамках государственного заказа лекарств могут быть комитет здравоохранения, государственный аптечный склад или аптеки. Но в любом случае, если эти закупки оплачиваются из бюджета или внебюджетных фондов, они попадают под понятие "государственный заказ". Под понятие государственного заказа согласно действующему законодательству попадают потребности как федеральных органов государственной власти.!}

Src = "https://present5.com/presentation/1/175150398_455077893.pdf-img/175150398_455077893.pdf-7.jpg" alt = "(! LANG:> The state order provides: -The needs of the Russian Federation, state customers in goods, works, services required"> Государственный заказ обеспечивает: -Потребности РФ, государственных заказчиков в товарах, работах, услугах, необходимых для осуществления функций и полномочий РФ (в которых участвует РФ); -Потребности субъектов РФ, государственных заказчиков в товарах, работах, услугах, необходимых для осуществления функций и полномочий субъектов РФ (для реализации региональных целевых программ); -потребности муниципальных образований, муниципальных заказчиков в товарах, работах, услугах, необходимых для решения вопросов местного значения и осуществления отдельных государственных полномочий, переданных органом местного самоуправления федеральными законами или законами субъектов РФ, функций и полномочий муниципальных заказчиков.!}

Src = "https://present5.com/presentation/1/175150398_455077893.pdf-img/175150398_455077893.pdf-8.jpg" alt = "(! LANG:> 3. State industrial policy, its concepts; Industrial policy -"> 3. Государственная промышленная политика, ее концепции; Промышленная политика - это совокупность действий государства, оказываемых влияние на деятельность хозяйствующих субъектов (предприятий, корпораций, предпринимателей), а также на отдельные аспекты этой деятельности, относящиеся к приобретению факторов производства, организации производства, распределению и реализации товаров и услуг во всех фазах жизненного цикла хозяйствующего субъекта и жизненного цикла его продукции.!}

Src = "https://present5.com/presentation/1/175150398_455077893.pdf-img/175150398_455077893.pdf-9.jpg" alt = "(! LANG:> The subject of industrial policy is the state manufacturer of goods"> Субъектом Объектом промышленной политики является государство производитель товаров и услуг на территории данного государства!}

Src = "https://present5.com/presentation/1/175150398_455077893.pdf-img/175150398_455077893.pdf-10.jpg" alt = "(! LANG:> The objectives of industrial policy are stable and innovative development of the industry, achieving and maintaining high competitiveness"> Целями промышленной политики являются стабильное и инновационное развитие промышленности, достижение и поддержание высокой конкурентоспособности национальной экономики, импортозамещение и повышение конкурентоспособности промышленной продукции, производимой на территории Российской Федерации, на мировом рынке, а также обеспечение на этой основе безопасности Российской Федерации в экономической и технологической сферах.!}

Src = "https://present5.com/presentation/1/175150398_455077893.pdf-img/175150398_455077893.pdf-11.jpg" alt = "(! LANG:> Industrial policy instruments are determined by the roles in which the state can act in"> Инструменты промышленной политики определяются теми ролями, в которых государство может выступать в отношениях с конкретным производителем: - собственник (или совладелец); - поставщик (продавец) факторов производства; - потребитель произведенной продукции; - получатель налоговых платежей; - регулятор рынков факторов производства и конечной продукции; - регулятор деятельности производителя; - арбитр в хозяйственных спорах; - политический субъект в рамках международных отношений, влияющих на деятельность производителя или на рынки, в которых он участвует!}

State industrial policy is one of the most discussed concepts in the domestic economic literature. Discussions are conducted both on the content of the concept of industrial policy and on the directions of implementation of industrial policy in Russia.

The term "industrial policy" entered the Russian economic literature in the early 1990s and was borrowed from Western economic literature, the original name is "industrial policy" 2. The adoption of the concept of industrial policy by scattered specialists has led to the fact that in the domestic literature there are different interpretations of the content of industrial policy 3.

In the domestic literature, along with the term "industrial policy", the term "structural policy" is also used, which has remained from the time of the state-planning concept; often these two terms are given synonymous meaning. In Western literature, structural policy is understood as institutional transformations, such as privatization, reform of monopolies, assistance to the development of small and medium-sized businesses, etc.

The evolution of views and the need for a common 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 the selected national goals and priorities. The central issue and subject of industrial policy are intersectoral proportions and structural shifts in industry, and not issues of industrial development in general and, say, intrasectoral competition.

Finally, the definition of industrial policy given by the specialists of the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of the Russian Federation, industrial policy is a set of measures implemented by the state in order to increase the efficiency and competitiveness of domestic industry and form its modern structure, contributing to the achievement of these goals. Industrial policy is a necessary complement to structural policies aimed at promoting social welfare. When developing an industrial policy, it is important to define goals and priorities set on the basis of strategic guidelines for the production and commercial activities of economic entities and 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 the sectors of the national economy. The purpose of industrial policy is to change the existing sectoral structure of the national economy, increase the share of priority sectors in the created national product.

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

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

1) instruments of budgetary policy: the provision of various kinds of subsidies and loans from the state budget, the implementation of state investment policy in certain sectors of the economy in order to develop the production base, infrastructure facilities, form growth poles, etc.

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

3) instruments of monetary policy 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, reserve requirement.

4) institutional policy instruments: improving 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 credits and guarantees, customs and tax incentives, 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: creation of a favorable investment climate and assistance in attracting investments in those industries, the development of which is a priority for the state;

7) training and retraining of specialists for priority industries.

Thus, the implementation of industrial policy presupposes significant government intervention in the functioning of the economic system. This raises the question of the justification for its implementation, especially in 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 an illegal state intervention in the economy, distorting the action of market mechanisms and hindering the efficient (optimal) allocation of resources. According to this point of view, the state is not able to determine the true points of growth, therefore, any priorities of the state 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 against industrial policy can be made.

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

The ability to set government priorities for the development of specific sectors can lead to lobbying and corruption, which will give priority to inefficient sectors.

The state cannot accurately determine the priorities of industrial policy in the long term. The experience of most countries shows that industrial policy instruments are ineffective in the long term.

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

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

The arguments for industrial policy are.

The market is only effective when there are relatively small deviations from the optimum. Eliminating large structural imbalances requires government intervention.

When making decisions, market actors are guided, as a rule, by short-term goals, which can lead to deviations from the long-term optimum.

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

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

Thus, the question arises of assessing the effectiveness of industrial policy. In what conditions it will contribute to an increase in social welfare, and in what 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 the competitive advantages of certain industries;

4) stimulation of investment activity in target industries by ensuring favorable conditions for functioning, especially in industries that have a large indirect effect on the development of the national economy; etc.

Industrial policy, as a rule, involves the creation of more favorable conditions for the development of priority sectors and restraining 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 the acceleration of the rate of development of some industries and the deceleration of the rate of development of others. However, there are serious methodological difficulties associated with the measurement of this indicator.

Thus, we can conclude that the implementation of industrial policy is justified in the context 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. The level of state industrial policy. At this level, the formation and implementation of measures for macrostructural transformations takes place, for creating favorable conditions for such transformations and for adapting or neutralizing their unfavorable consequences.

2. The sectoral (sectoral) level of industrial policy determines the specific goals and measures 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 measures 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 determination of a long-term strategy for the socio-economic development of the state is required. In this regard, it is customary in the economic literature 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 ensuring 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 counterparts.

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

Improving the structure of the balance of payments;

Provision of employment and, as a consequence, the growth of domestic effective demand;

Reducing the dependence of the economy on the outside world;

Development of fund-creating industries due to the growing demand for buildings, structures, machinery and equipment.

The negative results of the implementation of import substitution can be associated with the following processes:

Weakening of the effect of international competition in the domestic market of the country and, as a result, the technological lag of the national economy from developed countries;

Creation of unduly favorable conditions for domestic producers, which, in turn, may lead to a weakening of their competitiveness;

Ineffective micro-level governance;

Saturation of the domestic market with lower quality domestic products due to the protectionist measures of the state restricting access to the market for high-quality imported products.

India (1960-1980s), France (1950-1970s), Japan (after World War II) and China (1970-1980s) are examples of implementing an internally oriented industrial policy (import substitution). ), USSR, DPRK.

Export-oriented industrial policy

The main task of the export-oriented industrial policy is to promote the development of export industries, whose products are competitive in the international market. Among the instruments used by the state in the implementation of this type of industrial policy are:

Establishment of tax and customs privileges for exporting enterprises, granting them preferential loans;

Pursuing a policy of weak exchange rate of the national currency;

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

Export infrastructure development;

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;

Development of competitive industries, which ensures a multiplier effect of the development of the national economy as a whole, both along the chain of inter-industry ties, and due to the growth of effective demand from the population employed in these industries;

The inflow of foreign exchange resources into the country due to the growth of exports;

Attraction of additional investments, including foreign ones.

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

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

Despite the significant benefits that society can receive from the implementation of 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 raw material orientation of the economy;

The growth of corruption in government bodies responsible for the regulation of foreign trade operations;

The outflow of labor and financial resources from the manufacturing industry to the extractive 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 taking place 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. Long-term prospects for the development of the national economy with a raw material export orientation are dubious.

However, the negative consequences of the implementation of the export-oriented model arise not only in the case of an orientation towards the export of raw materials, an example can be Mexico, where the orientation of the country's economy towards the export of highly processed products assumed 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, the products assembled in Mexico ceased to be competitive in the global 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 an increase in the role of industries that depend on the situation on the world market, which, when the situation in the world market for exported products deteriorated, 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 availability of production resources. In this regard, there are two types of export orientation.

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

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

So, the main advantages of an export-oriented industrial policy are international cooperation, improving the competitiveness of national industry, deepening integration into the international division of labor. However, one should fear 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 the implementation of this policy is the activation of innovation and the introduction of 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 no return on investments, investment decisions that are profitable from the point of view of society at the level of economic entities may not always be made, since short-term predominates in their behavior. goals.

Numerous researchers note that the higher the level of competition (the lower the level of concentration) in the industry, the lower the inclination of firms to invest in innovative development, and the main source of funding for innovation 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;

The growing demand for highly qualified labor force, which stimulates the population to receive quality education;

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

Intensive development of asset-creating industries, mainly mechanical engineering, as well as industries with a high degree of product processing, 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 the basic production assets of the 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 to stimulate R&D, which often meets with resistance at the state level;

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

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

Countries such as Japan (1970-1990s), South Korea (1980-1990s), the USA, and the countries of the European Union can be cited as examples of the implementation of the innovative development model.

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

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

Based on the analysis of world experience in carrying out structural transformations, the following strategy for the implementation of industrial policy that is optimal for society can be identified.

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, there is a need to stimulate other industries.

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