The experts of the Institute for Statistical Studies and Economy of Knowledge HSE (ISSEK HSE) prepared a new ranking of innovative development of the Russian Federation regions and found out that regions differ significantly in relation to innovation policy and the level of its implementation. For example, in Chuvashia almost a third of industrial companies are developing technological innovations. More than half of Sakhalin region products are innovative products, and large territories at the North Caucasus do not produce such products.
Estimates for 2013 and 2014 are presented in the fourth edition of the analytical report. The original system of indicators is based on the results of years of research ISSEK. Information of official statistics, bibliometrics and patent information, records of the Federal Treasury, open data portals with state authorities were used when analyzing.
Summary ranking - Russian Regional Innovation Index (RRII) is formed by several sub-indices:
The ranking touched on all regions of the Russian Federation, except for the Crimea and Sevastopol, for which data for 2014 was incomplete, Leonid Gokhberg, Eugene Kutsenko, the authors of the study, and Elena Nechaeva, the director of the Center of socio-economic information processing ISSEK HSE noted.
Ranking of innovative development of regions led by Tatarstan, Moscow and St. Petersburg. It is noteworthy that Moscow has lost the leadership for the first time since 2008. The top-10 also included Mordovia, Kaluga region, Nizhny Novgorod region, Penza region, Tomsk region, Chuvashia, Khabarovsk Territory.
In accordance with the report, outsiders are Jewish autonomous region, the Republic of Ingushetia, Chechnya, Kalmykia, Nenets autonomous area.
The innovative development of the territorial entities of the Russian Federation is uneven. According to RRII, the region, which closes the ranking, lags behind the top region more than 3.5 times. Reduction the support of innovations in regions, which is being actively carried out by the federal government (through targeted programs, funding for research organizations, etc.) can enhance the differences in future, ISSEK noted.
The category of relatively stable regions with respect to the level of innovation development includes 34 of them . Krasnoyarsk Territory, Astrakhan region, Bryansk region, Vologda region, Ivanovo region, Orel region and Samara region did not change place in the ranking.
Such territories as Mari El (18 products), Karelia (15), Mordovia (14), Rostov region (14), Kabardino-Balkaria (13) have risen sharply in the ranking.
While Kurgan region (-36), Magadan region (-34), Leningrad region (-25) region and Kamchatka region (-18) have dropped in the rating.
Socio-economic conditions of the regions, scientific and technical potential, innovations and quality of innovation policy affect the final position in the ranking. The uniform development of all of four factors is typical for the few - Moscow, Krasnoyarsk Territory, Tomsk region, Saratov region, Orenburg region and Kostroma region. "Regulations" of the rest are different, sometimes diametrically.
For example, Ulyanovsk region has retained first place in the ranking on the index of scientific and technological potential (INTP), leaving behind Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod region and St. Petersburg. At the same time the socio-economic conditions for innovations (according to the ranking ISEU) are underdeveloped in the region: its 27th place and minus 6 points compared to 2013.
The best ISEU indicators belong to Moscow and St. Petersburg. The lowest belong to Chechen republic (Chechnya) and Jewish autonomous region. The maximum progress were shown by Penza region (+34), Karachay-Cherkessia (+22) and Khakassia (+21). One of the main reason is named as the active renewal of fixed assets and the growth of Internet accessibility.
The high scientific and technical potential, in addition to the Ulyanovsk region, showed St. Petersburg, Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod region, Tomsk region, Yaroslavl region, Novosibirsk region, Moscow region, Smolensk region, Omsk region and the Republic of Bashkortostan. In these regions the sphere of science and technology is equipped best by financial and human resources. So, in Smolensk region the proportion of researchers under the age of 39 years is 59% (the national average - 41.3%). In Novosibirsk region there is a high proportion of highly qualified scientific persons 52.1% (the average in the Russian Federation - 29.3%). Nizhny Novgorod region is attractive in terms of wage level in science.
At the other extreme of ranking INTP there are Ingushetia, Pskov region, Nenets autonomous area. Khanty-Mansiisk autonomous district and Karachay-Cherkessia (at -29) lost stronger than others for a year.
The cancel (revocation) of the Concept of Moscow's innovation policy has led to move the capital from third to eleventh position in the ranking on the index of the quality of innovation policy (IKIP).
Mordovia has got Moscows place and flown up directly at +17. This growth was achieved by obtaining in 2013 more than 380 million rubles of federal subsidies for the construction of an engineering center of fiber optics. It is noteworthy that tranche of the federal budget for the development of the republic innovation infrastructure was seriously reduced in 2014, and it risks not to be in the top three at IKIP next year, experts noted.
The Council for Science and Technology Policy and Innovations was disbanded in Trans-Baikal territory, and the implementation the program of innovative development was stopped. As a consequence the absolute negative record for IKIP ranking - the loss of 44 points (69th place).
There is the opposite situation in St. Petersburg, where the Strategy of economic and social development with its own "innovative" block was implemented. The result is the moving from 41th to 23th place. The adoption of regional programs brought into the ranks of the top (13th) Tver region, allowed to climb the ten steps Kuzbass (29th place). 19 "steps" up of the Republic of Tuva (17th place) are secured by increasing budgetary expenditure on science and innovations.
IKIP maximum value among all 83 regions have traditionally belonged to Tatarstan. Nenets autonomous area has shown the minimum (zero).
Mordovia, Tatarstan and Chuvashia had been implemented innovations in practice intensively in 2014 and led the ranking on the index of innovation (IDN).
Technological innovations were implemented most actively in Chuvashia (3rd place): 28.8% of industrial enterprises (almost three times more than in the country). In Mordovia (1st place) and Tatarstan (2) non-technological innovations (management, marketing) are particularly common. These regions have leading positions in the share of innovative products in the total volume of shipped goods and rendered services: 27.4% and 21.5%, respectively.
In general, the first group includes twenty regions. Mainly from Volga and Central federal districts: Bashkortostan, Moscow, Perm territory, Nizhny Novgorod region, Penza region, Yaroslavl region, Lipetsk region, Tula region, Kursk region, Vladimir region, and others.
The lower factors of the index (the fourth group) were "discovered" in seven areas, especially the North Caucasus (Ingushetia, Karachay-Cherkessia, Chechnya), as well as in the Republic of Tuva, Kalmykia, Kaliningrad region, Jewish autonomous region. "The results of innovations are not registered in general almost in all subjects of the group," experts noted.
Arkhangelsk region (-48 positions, from 8 to 56 place), Nenets autonomous area (-28), Magadan region (-24) have become examples of reducing IDN primarily. Mari El (+27, from 50 to 23 place) has made equally sharp rise.
The "swing", when the regions are significantly losing or adding positions, is repeated in every ranking of innovative development of the Russian Federation. Changes are not always stable. Concerted actions by authorities, companies, universities and research organizations can only provide long-term impact, stressed in ISSEK.
The authors of the study:
Leonid Gokhberg, director of the Institute of Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge HSE (ISSEK HSE).
Eugene Kutsenko, head of the department of cluster policy ISSEK HSE.