Suchergebnisse

The paper examines some aspects of the development of the "economics of technology" as an independent scientific field of research, which is an essential part of the wider direction of "economics of scientific and technological progress", developed by a group of outstanding Soviet economists.The purpose of this article is to analyze the methodological principles of the "economics of technology" as a modern field of science. In addition, it aims to demonstrate the contributions of the Soviet and Russian economic schools and the continuity of their studies.The study employs theories of technological change, development factors, and comparative analysis to explore the chronological aspect of technology's inclusion in economic analysis.The result of the analysis indicates that modern works by the Russian economic school, including studies of "combinatorial accumulation" of technologies, significantly alter the idea of technological evolution in contrast to the long-held principle of "creative destruction" by J. Schumpeter, which underpins most well-known models of technological dynamics. Thus, building on the traditions of Soviet economic schools, such as Heynman, Lvov, and Anchishkin, a new independent field of study, "economics of technology," is emerging, emphasizing not only economic impact or renewal or forecasting, but also scientific and technological developments, interactions, and changes in technologies that are improved at various rates in different areas of production activities within their core or peripheries. Thus, the structure of technology within each type of activity, as well as the structural design of each technology within the "core-periphery" framework, is of fundamental importance.The general conclusion is that the scientific direction "economics of technology" consists of studying the effects of combinatorial growth in technology, technological duality, and the sensitivity of technological development goals to different industrial policy instruments. It also includes modes and models of substituting and adding technologies, as well as technological neutrality and its impact on economic growth.

The paper is dedicated to the memory of the outstanding scientist and statesman, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Valery Petrovich Chichkanov, who was a member of the Editorial Council of the journal Economics of Science and actively participated in its work. The goal is to describe the main ideas that he reproduced over the last three years of his life, which are reflected in a series of nine articles.Additionally, it aims to demonstrate the significance of his figure for the Russian economic school and the Russian Academy of Sciences. The methodology used is descriptive and historical-bibliographical analysis. The main result of this study is the systematization of V. P. Chichkanov's main proposals on the development of the Russian Academy of Sciences, regions, and management teams. It also proposes an alternative methodology for assessing these teams in the field of public administration and import substitution policy, which collectively reflects their contribution to the economy and management. The originality and role of the Corresponding Member of RAS V. P. Chikanov for Russian science emphasize the usefulness and importance of these ideas.

The purpose of the study is to identify the main conditions that ensure the influence of science on innovation, especially in terms of technological innovation. Comparative and structural analysis, application of measurement procedures, and evaluation of empirical data constitute the methodology of the study. The results of the study can be reduced to a number of provisions confirmed by analysis. Firstly, in Russia, in the course of permanent reorganizations, the institutional, informational, funding, and even personnel potential (due to a reduction in the number of researchers) was greatly weakened. Thus, the impact of scientific knowledge on the innovation process was clearly reduced, although the thesis that innovations are always results of scientific activities is difficult to dispute. Secondly, we should not talk about it as a direct relationship, but through the time lags. It is they who become a stumbling block in the conducting and planning current scientific and technological policy. Thirdly, the author has showed the main problems of technological innovation in Russia, identified in the course of many years of author's research, supporting the important conclusion about the lack of an accurate representation and measurement of the level of technological effectiveness of the economy. The author has also proposed to solve this problem by detailing and improving accounting and statistical procedures in the field of technology, e. g., by means of technological maps, as well as by introducing an indicator as technology coverage of relevant objects (enterprises, regions, etc.). The current piece measurement of technologies does not consider coverage. Such an omission causes a significant distortion in the assessment of the technological level, as well as in further studies of the relationship between basic science, R&D, and technological development.

Relevance. The development of the Eurasian Union means economic integration between its member countries (Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia). For more efficient coordination of this process, it is necessary to analyze national models of economic growth and adjust the Union's economic policy accordingly.Research objective. The study aims to identify the national models of economic growth by applying the structural analysis method and building regression models of GDP growth.Data and methods. The study relies on the structural analysis of GDP growth and regression analysis of the impact of macroeconomic policy instruments.Results. The study provides an overview of the research literature on the factors affecting economic growth (e.g. the financial structure, government expenditures. Based on the results of the structural analysis, a classification of the models of economic growth in terms of expenditures and sectors is proposed. This classification can be used to devise measures stimulating cooperation and integration within the Eurasian Union.Conclusions. The study has revealed the differences between the national models of economic growth by looking at each country's reaction to the crises of 2009 and 2015. These differences correspond to the peculiarities of each country's economic policy and need to be taken into account in the Union's policy-making.