Presentation on the topic: Features of state regulation of material development. State industrial policy State industrial policy and its concepts presentation

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". The borrowing 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.

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 is 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 to form its modern structure that contributes 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, to increase the share of priority sectors in the created national product.

Industrial policy pursues different goals than industry policy. If sectoral policy pursues the goal of increasing the national economic efficiency of the industry and is implemented mainly through short-term measures, then 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, the formation of 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 within the framework of the currently dominant liberal-market economic concept (neoclassical theory) and the assessment of its effectiveness.

Within the framework of neoclassical theory, industrial policy is viewed as 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.

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

2. The ability to set government priorities for the development of specific sectors can lead to lobbying and corruption, as a result of which priorities will be given to inefficient sectors.

3. 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.

4. 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 government intervention in the natural development of the national economy.

The arguments for industrial policy are.

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

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

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

4. 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, for creating favorable conditions for such transformations and for adapting or neutralizing their unfavorable consequences, takes place and is ensured.

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 of the state, maintaining a low exchange rate of the national currency and stimulating the production of products that replace imported analogs.

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 consequence, 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 protectionist measures of the state restricting access to the market for high-quality imported products.

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

Export-oriented industrial policy

The main 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, providing them with 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 provides 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 an 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);

Decrease 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 dependent on the situation on the world market, which, when the situation on 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, two types of export orientation arise.

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 developing 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 context 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 to intensify 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 less 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 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 application 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.

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!}

Introduction

Industrial policy and competition policy have a common goal - to ensure sustainable economic growth and increase the well-being of the population, based on the assumption that the state seeks to maximize public utility. The difference between industrial and competition policy lies in the means used to accelerate the pace and make economic development more sustainable. The main method of implementing industrial policy is the provision of a limited number of agents of the national economy with additional resources that can be used for investment. From this point of view, a set of measures aimed at the withdrawal of part of the rental income from the extractive industries through taxation and their distribution through the budget to other sectors of the economy based on one criterion or another.

In modern conditions, an important factor affecting the ratio of competition and industrial policy in Russia is the reform of technical regulation, within the framework of which the entire system of establishing mandatory requirements for manufactured products and production processes, confirmation of conformity, as well as liability for violation of mandatory requirements will change. On the one hand, the formation of technical regulations is the most important condition for reducing uncertainty for all interested parties (especially consumers and manufacturers) and, accordingly, a factor in saving on transaction costs. On the other hand, the emergence of technical regulations can have a significant impact (including negative) on the conditions of competition in the relevant product markets.

The work is based on the achievements of economic theory and practice of world civilization. It reveals the role and features of the antimonopoly policy of the state. Therefore, this topic can be considered very relevant today.

The aim is to review the government's antitrust policy.

The goal made it possible to formulate the tasks that were solved in this work:

1) Consider industrial policy policies to support competition

2) Identify conflicts between industrial policy and competition support policy

Industrial policy

Industrial policy is defined as a set of administrative, financial and economic measures aimed at ensuring a new quality of economic growth of the country by increasing innovation activity, efficiency and competitiveness of production in order to expand the share of domestic companies in the domestic and world markets in order to improve the welfare of citizens.

The actualization of industrial policy and the urgent need for its early development and practical implementation are due to the following circumstances:

The country's technological potential is being rapidly destroyed;

The technological lag behind the advanced countries in recent years has become general;

Technological lag, which has reached a critical limit, threatens the loss of the very ability to create competitive science-intensive products;

Only one fourth of all technologies correspond to the world level, many of which are in no way transformed into competitive advantages at the stage of industrial production.

World experience shows that the main principles for the development and implementation of industrial policy, ensuring an increase in national competitiveness in the main areas of socio-economic development of modern societies and states, are:

Formation of industrial policy as the most important component of a national strategy with active equal participation in its development and implementation of the state, business, scientific and public organizations;

Transition from the existing sectoral industrial policy to the policy of concentration of national efforts and state support of competitive companies;

A change in priorities in the selection of industrial policy objects in accordance with the global trend, an increase in the importance of high-tech industries with high added value, while the role of traditional resource-intensive industries decreases;

Creation of conditions for the transition to a knowledge-based economy with the decisive role of production, distribution and use of knowledge and information as the main factors of sustainable economic growth.

Modern economic theories distinguish two basic concepts of state industrial policy:

Tough state industrial policy with an unconditional predominance of methods of direct budget subsidies for industries or individual ambitious projects based on strong-willed, administrative levers; this model was applied, as a rule, in the early stages of industrial development;

Modern national industrial policy with an unconditional predominance of methods of indirect (financial and economic) stimulation of the release of competitive products and services.

The system-forming goal of industrial policy in the context of Russia's entry into the global market space is to increase national competitiveness (i.e., the ability to produce and consume goods and services in conditions of competition with other countries), adherence to international standards and expand the share of domestic companies in the domestic and world markets. as the main source of increasing the well-being of citizens of the country with a continuous increase in their living standards.

The main task of the state in this area is to create an integral system for ensuring the development of high-tech production in Russia. It is not about supporting industries or subsectors according to the canons of a planned economy, but about supporting individual industries and technologies that determine the possibilities of technological breakthroughs and are significant for the world economy.

Based on these prerequisites, the main tasks of industrial policy can be formulated as follows:

Stimulating scientific and technological progress;

Structural reform of the scientific and industrial sphere;

Creation of institutional foundations and infrastructure of the knowledge economy, ensuring the practical development of scientific achievements;

Formation of incentives for investing in new knowledge and new technologies;

Accumulation, development and effective use of intellectual (human and structural) capital of the new economy;

Direction of investment flows to intellectual capital;

Priority development of the education sector;

Redistribution of part of the income of traditional sectors of the economy to meet the challenges of scientific and technological progress;

Informatization of society and implementation of management reform on this basis.

Export-oriented model. The essence of the export-oriented model of industrial policy is the all-round encouragement of industries oriented to the export of their products. The main incentive measures are aimed at developing and supporting competitive export industries. The priority task is considered to be the production of competitive products and entering the international market with them. The important advantages of this model are the country's inclusion in the world economy and access to world resources and technologies; development of strong competitive sectors of the economy, which provide a multiplier effect for the development of other, "domestic" sectors and are the main supplier of funds to the budget; attraction of foreign exchange funds into the country and their investment in the development of production and services of the national economy.

Countries such as Japan, South Korea, Chile, “Asian Tigers” (Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore), and more recently China can serve as successful examples of the implementation of an export-oriented model of industrial policy.

At the same time, there are also negative examples - Venezuela, Mexico.

The import substitution model is a strategy for ensuring the domestic market based on the development of national production. Import substitution presupposes the implementation of a protectionist policy and the maintenance of a firm exchange rate of the national currency (thereby preventing inflation). The import substitution model helps to improve the structure of the balance of payments, normalize domestic demand, provide employment, develop machine-building production, and scientific potential.

This situation was typical for the economy of the USSR and the DPRK. Also, under the influence of various objective economic, geopolitical and institutional factors, the industrial policy of Russia carried out after the collapse of the USSR and up to the present day has a pronounced import-substituting character.

Innovation activity includes both all stages of scientific and technical activity, as well as production that ensures the development and implementation of innovations, and activities that create conditions for the further functioning of innovations (i.e. intermediary activity). The innovation model is based on the process of the country's economic development, both in the domestic and foreign markets, based on the latest trends in technological and social development using high-tech and capital-intensive production.

The innovative model helps to maintain the scientific and technical potential of the country, and, consequently, its competitiveness in the international arena; stimulates the development of educational institutions and provides the economy with highly educated and qualified personnel; promotes job creation domestically and provides domestic demand; maintains a stable and high exchange rate of the national currency and the well-being of the population; focuses on the development of a machine-processing complex, machine-tool and instrument making with a high added value of manufactured products.

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

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

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

• Introduction
• conclusions
• Conclusion
• List of sources used

Introduction

The topic of the test "Industrial policy" in the discipline "Economic theory".

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

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

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

industrial policy neoclassical evolutionary

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

Industrial policy: theoretical aspect.

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

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

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

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

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

But before posing the question in such a practical plane, it is advisable to turn to the theoretical aspect of the problem, once again weigh the arguments "for" and "against" in relation to industrial policy in the light of the radically changed economic conditions both within the country and abroad. For this, the provisions of neoclassical, institutional and evolutionary economic theories will be consistently considered. Let's start our research by establishing the boundaries of its subject area - the definition of the concept of "industrial policy".

1. What is industrial policy?

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

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

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

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

However, such an extended interpretation distracts from the traditional understanding of industrial policy, which, in turn, makes it difficult to study this phenomenon in a historical aspect. Therefore, J. Foreman-Peck, who performed a retrospective analysis of European industrial policy in the XX century, refers to its sphere only those who produce ( manufacturing) and infrastructural ( infrastructure) industry ( industries). And although he believes that, in principle, the term " industry"can be extended to any source of employment, be it mining, agriculture or the service industry (assuming that the classification of jobs is somewhat arbitrary), yet" relation to industry, defined more strictly, and therefore the field of research should be limited so that it can be controlled. "

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

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

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

Similar uncertainty is observed with respect to industrial policy goals: “In most cases, industrial policy has multiple goals - to increase short-term employment, increase production, improve income distribution and increase technological capacity. It often also includes (rightly or wrongly) non-economic goals of national pride and prestige, as well as the perceived need to promote "strategic" domestic industries. Above, such goals as the structural transformation of the economy, stimulating the creation of firms, promoting innovation, ensuring competitiveness, etc., were also named. All this together gives reason to assert that, "unlike most other spheres of economic policy, industrial policy does not have a clearly defined and a recognized set of goals to be achieved. "

So, it is impossible to strictly outline the boundaries of the subject area of ​​the study - to determine industrial policy - since there is no clarity about:

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

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

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

It seems that this conclusion is not unexpected or original: "The expression" industrial policy "means different things to different people", so that "any six randomly selected economists will certainly produce at least a dozen different opinions on this issue." And further: "No taxonomy can fully encompass the range of industrial policy concepts that can be found in the literature." "Industrial policy, despite being labeled as 'politics', lacks the most characteristic features of the latter."

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

In order to establish which elements should be included in the "fuzzy set" of industrial policy, and which should not, it is important to determine the purpose for which such a restriction is applied. In this work, this is a study of the theory of the question. In full, it is not an integral and consistent logical system, but a conceptual aggregate or "population" of concepts 29 that develop in competition for the best explanation of the same sphere of empirical phenomena (overlapping spheres of phenomena) and predicting possible scenarios for the development of events. In turn, the development of such a conceptual aggregate has direct and reverse links with the evolution of the "population" of practices, in this case, the practice of industrial policy.

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

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

2. Neoclassical foundations of industrial policy

Under normal neoclassical assumptions, free competition between self-serving rational economic agents who are fully informed and lack market power leads to a Pareto-efficient use of limited resources. Therefore, the grounds for government intervention in such a market mechanism arise if there are obstacles to free competition, known as market failures ( market failures). However, this intervention itself can also be associated with failures, but now the state ( government failures). So neoclassical arguments for industrial policy can be countered with equally compelling arguments against it.

Market failures. In the context of industrial policy, market failures, which give rise to some form of government intervention, usually include incomplete information, non-competitive markets and externalities.

Incomplete information. From the point of view of manufacturers, incomplete information may result in incorrect assessments of the profitability of individual commercial projects. The problem becomes more complicated if it is planned to release a new product, the profitability of which has not yet been assessed by the market, and in the case of "tied" investments, when the uncertainty of investments in one type of activity (for example, in ore processing) generates uncertainty about investments in related other types of activities (for example , into the production of iron and steel). In turn, this leads to errors in assessing business prospects, and also reduces the potential level of business activity and investment in the economy. From the point of view of consumers, the incompleteness of information about the quality of new goods forces them to be guided by average estimates of already known comparable goods. In this situation, there is a risk that enterprises offering goods of above average quality will be squeezed out of the market - what is called "unfavorable selection" ( adverse selection). In addition, corporations can deliberately obstruct the flow of information, deliberately disseminate incomplete and / or inaccurate information, and develop strategies that create market imperfections. Opposition from public authorities may be that they "develop strong competition policies to restore conditions of fair competition in a near-informed situation, and implement strategic industrial policies through which they play an active role in encouraging neo-opportunistic behavior in industries of interest. industry ".

Non-competitive markets. Problems with competition in markets, which determine a certain degree of market power of economic agents, occur for a number of reasons. These can be control of rare resources, high fixed costs, economies of scale of production. “In an industry with high fixed costs (and hence economies of scale), the first firm to market has a decisive first mover advantage that discourages other firms from entering the market. In fact, high fixed costs and economies of scale are barriers to entrances behind which the trailblazer captures rents at the expense of potential competitors and consumers. " If the economies of scale are so great that it allows one enterprise to satisfy all market demand, then they speak of a natural monopoly - in the sense that barriers to entry are based on the laws of nature. In addition, as is known from the history of industrial policy, such barriers can be artificially created by the state: “The technologies of the 19th century were such that the infrastructure business held back the growth of industrial enterprises, and the most expensive type of this business was railways. to get troops to the border, and telecommunications to give them directions for action.For reasons of national security, communications networks, the postal service and roads, as well as the electric telegraph and telephone, have traditionally been state monopolies, except in those cases when there was not enough finance. " Methods for solving the problem of non-competitive markets include price regulation (usually for the products of natural monopolies), directive recreation of a competitive environment (through forced separation of enterprises), facilitating market entry (by easing regulatory requirements, allocating subsidies for start-ups, etc.).

Externalities. Knowledge is a typical example of externalities in the context of industrial policy. Once obtained, they can be assimilated by a large number of economic agents with relatively low costs (compared to the costs of generating them). Therefore, the public return on private investment in knowledge creation is greater than the individual level of the investor's profitability, and the total efforts of enterprises aimed at acquiring knowledge are the performance of R&D, the opening of new market opportunities (the so-called " self- discovery"), etc. - may be below the socially optimal level. A similar problem is associated with the costs of enterprises for staff training, from which, in the conditions of its high mobility, other organizations also benefit. As in the case of other externalities, this weakens incentives to provide training In addition, externalities arise in the process of coordination in time and space - when the creation of new products requires, in particular, large simultaneous investments in related activities, the organization of which is not provided by a market mechanism, the geographical concentration of industry, due to economies of scale and the presence within a given territory of rare or hard-to-move factors of production.Externalities can be either positive (due to the general infrastructure, concentration of skilled workers, diffusion of tacit knowledge), and negative (due to the accumulation of problematic industries and environmental issues). The usual neoclassical recipes for solving the problems of externality are to provide subsidies (monetary, credit, tax, etc.) and government procurement - to enhance positive externalities (for example, by stimulating R&D and spinoff), as well as in the collection of additional mandatory payments (taxes to Pigou) and fines - to weaken negative externalities (for example, by increasing the costs of environmental pollutants).

State failures. To correct market failures, public authorities intervene in business processes (through taxes, subsidies, purchases, regulatory norms, etc.), but the end result of their actions can also be failures - an even less efficient use of limited resources than without such intervention. In the context of industrial policy, state failures include imperfect information, self-serving behavior of officials, conflicts of the state's industrial policy with other types of economic policy.

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

Self-serving behavior official persons. If, in accordance with the premise of the rational egoism of economic agents, officials pursue primarily personal (and not public) interests, then the results of their actions may be ineffective allocation of resources (the allocation of subsidies to the wrong industries that really need them, unnecessarily low or high tariffs, etc.) and the introduced distortion of competition - no matter how knowledgeable they are about market problems. When regulatory bodies are created to conduct industrial policy, the self-serving behavior of officials can lead to their "capture" ( regulatory capture), meaning that these bodies begin to perform the functions assigned to them in the interests of those firms whose activities they are supposed to regulate. This gives some reason to conclude that "economic regulation is not carried out in the public interest at all, but is a process by which interest groups try to advance their (private) interests." As a rule, the "capture" of regulatory bodies is achieved by methods of corruption (through bribes or providing officials with various benefits, for example, in the form of guarantees of future employment, etc.), although other methods can also be used for this.

Conflicts industrial politicians states with others kinds economic politicians. In addition to industrial policy, there are at least two other types of economic policy associated with government support for business: trade policy (aimed at meeting the interests of domestic producers and consumers) and competition policy (aimed at ensuring the effective functioning of the market coordination mechanism. and the fight against non-competitive business practices). All of them have overlapping areas of application, and therefore their simultaneous use, which is common in practice, is fraught with contradictions and even conflicts. Typical examples of such contradictions are those that arise in the implementation of industrial policy in the form of support for "young industries" ( infant industry). Such support, usually appealing to market failures (in the form of poorly functioning capital markets, information barriers to entry into the industry), involves the creation of special trade barriers and measures to protect against competition, which clearly contradicts modern competition and trade policies, often aimed at ensuring greater openness of national economies.

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

3. Institutional framework for industrial policy

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

Such great importance attached to rules is due to the initial premises of institutional theory, according to which economic actors acting in their own interests are not fully informed and rational, but "are only capable of approximate and limited rationality." And what they can and cannot do in the current situation is determined by the institutions that restrict, structure and stimulate individual behavior. Therefore, the grounds for government intervention arise when, for the purposes of industrial policy, it is required to improve existing or adapt new institutions, thereby reducing transaction costs, that is, for a reason that can be called "rule failures" (rules failures).

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

Industrial innovation. Modern economic theory has moved away from understanding innovation as a mechanical process, in which large financial investments automatically provide greater returns (after all, it was usually believed that an increase in R&D costs leads to an increase in innovation), towards an organic socio-cultural process in which intangible factors play a key role. the ability of economic agents to learn and cooperative behavior. Now the prerequisite for their successful actions in the field of innovations, which play a key role in ensuring the competitiveness of industry, is considered a special social order based on "long rules" of interaction, which create the preconditions for long-term economic planning and on cooperation, and not only rivalry of economic agents, then , which got the name " co-opetition". In modern conditions," innovation in industrial sectors is the result of the interaction of various actors (firms, universities, public agencies, financial organizations) that have formal and informal partnerships. "And in such innovative business areas as pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, cooperation large, small and new firms is pervasive ( pervasive).

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

Industry diversification ( sectoral diversification) in industry, leading to structural changes and contributing to the growth of the economy and social welfare, involves the development of the production of goods that are not traditional for a given country or region. This usually does not require radical innovations based on R&D, but can be achieved by adapting the goods and technologies already known in the world to local conditions - what is called "self-discovery" ( self- discovery). As in the case of innovation, commercial organizations cannot deal with such adaptation on their own due to information problems and lack of coordination. The way out consists in measures of an institutional nature, providing for the formation of rules and the organization on their basis of the process of public-private cooperation - through joint research and the search for consensus on where exactly information and coordination externalities arise, what, in this regard, may be the goals of industrial policy in such a context. and how they should be achieved. “The correct model of industrial policy,” notes Rodrik, “is not about the use of Pigou taxes or subsidies by the autonomous government, but about strategic cooperation between the private sector and the government in order to identify where the most significant obstacles to restructuring are located and which type of interventions with the greatest is likely to eliminate them. " At the same time, the usual discussions about the tools, costs and results of government intervention in the industrial economy are not of fundamental importance. It is far more important to “have a process in place to help identify areas of desirable intervention. Governments that understand this will constantly be on the lookout for ways in which they can promote structural change and cooperation with the private sector. Industrial policy is thus more a state of mind than -or others. "

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

To successfully overcome these new barriers requires specific industrial policies.

It lies in the fact that the state must

1) help enterprises in their country adapt to the existing GVCs rules - through informing about what alternative GVCs exist and what key requirements should be met to participate in them, what standards are applied here and what needs to be done to achieve them, through the organization of collective action on creation of the infrastructure necessary to fulfill logistic requirements, etc .;

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

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

4. Evolutionary foundations of industrial policy

In evolutionary economic theory, in contrast to neoclassical and institutional ones, the motives of human behavior are determined, in addition to considerations of rationality and social factors, by the natural desire for survival. At the same time, behavior can be both egoistic and altruistic, since "in the evolutionary process, it is not individual survival as such that matters, but rather the successful transfer of heredity units or genes." So, under certain conditions, "it may be more profitable for an individual to facilitate the reproduction of related individuals even at the cost of his own life, thus acting self-sacrificingly for the benefit of others." Competition for limited resources is explained not through the free choice of independent subjects, but through the hierarchies of dominance in the population, which "arise in groups of living organisms in order to minimize aggression between individuals competing for limited resources. Since a high social rank automatically gives access to all available resources, natural selection favored the tendencies of the struggle for an increase in social status. "

The institutions in question are also viewed as having an epigenetic character. They, like any cultural-behavioral superstructure, are based on a biological basis - in the sense that they are formed by living beings that act as carriers of genetic information and are guided (including) by instincts - innate reactions to external and (or) internal stimuli. And institutions develop "through social teaching of the rules of behavior, which begins with primitive, genetically determined forms of social behavior with the addition of new elements as a result of trial and error."

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

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

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

OECD experts see the rationale for government intervention in the NIS context not in ordinary market failures, but in systematic failures, such as insufficient interaction between actors in the system, the discrepancy between basic research in the public sector and applied research in industry. , failures in the work of technology transfer institutions, insufficient ability of enterprises to receive and assimilate information 92. Accordingly, the proposed policies of these experts include the development of networking and the innovation capacity of enterprises 93.

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

Industrial clusters can be defined as spatial agglomerations of producers united by networks of intense and diverse interconnections. The concept of an industrial cluster differs from the concept of a conventional industrial agglomeration in that, in addition to the spatial concentration of enterprises, the cluster assumes functional links between its participants and complementary competencies.

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

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

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

Similar documents

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

test, added 08/11/2014


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

abstract added on 12/08/2014


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

test, added 09/14/2010


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

term paper, added 09/25/2011


Industrial policy: essence, types, problems, development strategy. Characteristics of the industrial policy of the Tomsk region: tasks, forms of implementation. Regulation methods, support of industrial activities. Production of nanoobjects. Industrial areas.

term paper, added 06/08/2008


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

test, added 09/28/2010


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

test, added 03/12/2014


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

thesis, added 09/08/2011


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

presentation added on 11/10/2014


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

1 slide

2 slide

What is the open economic policy of the state? The economic goals of the state. The main directions of economic policy. Monetary stabilization policy Objectives Instruments Types Pros and cons Stabilization fiscal policy Objectives Instruments Types Pros and cons Structural policy Definition How to understand it Examples of structural policy Pros and cons Questions 1

3 slide

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

4 slide

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

5 slide

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

6 slide

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

7 slide

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

8 slide

The stabilization policy mainly includes fiscal (fiscal) and monetary (monetary) policies. The structural direction uses such methods of influence on the economy as state support of sectors that are especially important for the development of the country's entire economy, production of public goods, privatization, promotion of competition and restriction of monopolies, etc. balanced development, i.e. a healthy lifestyle.

9 slide

Monetary stabilization policy What is it? What are the main advantages and risks associated with the use of its tools?

10 slide

Monetary policy objectives Ensuring: stable economic growth, full employment of resources, price level stability, balance of payments equilibrium.

11 slide

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

13 slide

Types of monetary policy There are two types of monetary policy: stimulating and constricting. Stimulating monetary policy is carried out during the recession with the aim of "cheering" the economy, growth of business activity in order to combat unemployment. Restraining monetary policy is carried out during the boom period and is aimed at reducing business activity in order to combat inflation.

14 slide

Advantages of monetary policy Absence of internal lag (the period of time between the moment of realizing the economic situation in the country and the moment of taking measures to improve it). No crowding-out effect. Stimulating monetary policy (an increase in the supply of money) leads to a decrease in the interest rate, which leads not to crowding out, but to stimulate investment. Multiplier effect.

15 slide

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

16 slide

Stabilization Fiscal Policy What is it? What are the main advantages and risks associated with the use of its tools?

17 slide

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

18 slide

Fiscal policy objectives: stable economic growth; 2) full employment of resources (solving the problem of cyclical unemployment); 3) stable price level. Fiscal policy instruments - expenditures and revenues of the state budget: state purchases; 2) taxes; 3) transfers.

19 slide

Types of fiscal policy Depending on the phase of the cycle, either an incentive or a restrictive policy is applied. An incentive fiscal policy is applied during a downturn and aims to increase aggregate demand. Its instruments are: an increase in government purchases, tax cuts and an increase in transfers. Restraining fiscal policy is used during a boom and aims to reduce aggregate demand. Its instruments are: cutting government procurement, increasing taxes and cutting transfers.

20 slide

Impact of fiscal policy instruments on aggregate demand Government procurement is a component of aggregate demand, so changes in them have a direct impact, while taxes and transfers have an indirect effect on aggregate demand. An increase in government procurement increases aggregate demand. Growth in transfers also increases aggregate demand as personal income of households increases. Higher taxes tend to reduce aggregate demand.

21 slide

The Impact of Fiscal Policy on Aggregate Supply Since firms view taxes as a cost, tax increases lead to a decrease in aggregate supply, and tax cuts lead to increased business activity and output.

22 slide

Advantages of fiscal policy Multiplier effect (fiscal policy instruments have a multiplier effect on the value of total output. No external lag (external lag is the period of time between a decision and the appearance of the first results. The presence of automatic stabilizers. Since these stabilizers are built-in, the government does not need take special measures to stabilize the economy.

23 slide

Disadvantages of fiscal policy Internal lag. (this is the period of time between the need to change the policy and the decision to change it). Crowding-out effect. (budget expenditures in the period of recession to total income, which is the demand for money and the interest rate in the money market. The rise in the cost of loans to private investment, ie to "crowding out" part of the investment costs of firms.

25 slide

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

26 slide

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

27 slide

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

Facebook

Twitter

In contact with

classmates

Google+