{"title":"Commercialization of Technologies, Productivity and Problems of Technological Audit in the Russian Economy","authors":"E. A. Tkachenko, E. M. Rogova, A. S. Osipenko","volume":134,"journal":"International Journal of Economics and Management Engineering","pagesStart":248,"pagesEnd":254,"ISSN":"1307-6892","URL":"https:\/\/publications.waset.org\/pdf\/10008831","abstract":"
The problems of technological development for the Russian Federation take on special significance in the context of modernization of the production base. The complexity of the position of the Russian economy is that it cannot be attributed fully to developing ones. Russia is a strong industrial power that has gone through the processes of destructive de-industrialization in the conditions of changing its economic and political structure. The need to find ways for re-industrialization is not a unique task for the economies of industrially developed countries. Under the influence of production outsourcing for 20 years, the industrial potential of leading economies of the world was regressed against the backdrop of the ascent of China, a new industrial giant. Therefore, methods, tools, and techniques utilized for industrial renaissance in EU may be used to achieve a technological leap in the Russian Federation, especially since the temporary gap of 5-7 years makes it possible to analyze best practices and use those technological transfer tools that have shown the greatest efficiency. In this article, methods of technological transfer are analyzed, the role of technological audit is justified, and factors are analyzed that influence the successful process of commercialization of technologies.<\/p>\r\n","references":"[1]\tS. T. Khan Productivity Growth, Technological Convergence, R&D, Trade, and Labor Markets: Evidence from the French, IMF Working Paper 2006 International Monetary Fund.\r\n[2]\tA. Bassanini, P. Pilat, S. Scarpetta, and P. Schreyer, \u201cEconomic Growth in the OECD Area: Recent Trends at the Aggregate and Sectoral Level,\u201d OECD Economics Department Working Papers No. 248 2000 (Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Economics Department). \r\n[3]\tA., Bassanini, E. Ernst, 2002, \u201cLabour market institutions, product market regulations and innovation: cross country evidence,\u201d OECD Economics Department Working Papers No. 316 (Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Economics Department). \r\n[4]\tS. Scarpetta, T. Tressel, \u201cProductivity and Convergence in a Panel of OECD Industries: Do Regulations and Institutions Matter?\u201d OECD 2002, Economics Department Working Papers 342.\r\n[5]\tA. Bernard, and C. Jones, \u201cProductivity and Convergence Across U.S. States and Industries,\u201d in Long-Run Economic Growth, eds. S. Durlauf, J. Helliwell and B. Raj, Physica-Verlag, 1996 Heidelberg.\r\n[6]\tBureau of Labor Statistics. Online (https:\/\/www.bls.gov\/news.release\/prod4.nr0.htm).\r\n[7]\tFederal State Statistics Service. Online (http:\/\/www.gks.ru\/wps\/wcm\/connect\/rosstat_main\/rosstat\/en\/figures\/labour\/).\r\n[8]\tS. V. Valdaytsev Crisis management on the basis of innovations: Publishing house C. - Peterb. un-that, 2001 \r\n[9]\tP. N., Zavlin, A. Vasilyev.\u2014 Efficiency assessment innovations \/ St. Petersburg: Business-pressa publishing house, 1998. \r\n[10]\tA. A. Zaytsev The international analysis of an industry labor productivity in 1991-2008 \u2013 M.: Institute of economy of RAS, 2014.\r\n[11]\tR. A. Burgelman, L. R. Sayles, Inside Corporate Innovation: Strategy, Structure and Managerial Skills, The Free. Press, 1986. (Paper 1988)\r\n[12]\tO. E. Williamson, \u201cThe Economic Institutions of Capitalism\u201d, New York: Free Press, 1985.\r\n[13]\tE Rogova. The effectiveness of business incubators as the element of the universities\u2019 spin-off strategy in Russia\/\/International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development. 2014. Vol. 13. No. 3. P. 265-281.\r\n[14]\tA. Bergek, C. Norrman, Incubator best practice: A framework, 2008, Technovation, (28), 1-2, 20-28. \r\n[15]\tH. Hall, B. Donald Innovation and Creativity on the Periphery: Challenges and Opportunities in Northern Ontario http:\/\/martinprosperity.org\/media\/pdfs\/Innovation_and_creativity_on_the_Periphery-H_Hall-B_Donald.pdf.\r\n[16]\tR. Wieser Research And Development Productivity And Spillovers: Empirical Evidence At The Firm Level Journal of Economic Surveys September 2005 Volume 19, Issue 4 Pages 535\u2013696.\r\n[17]\tD. B. Audretsch, Innovation and Industry Evolution (MIT Press, Cambridge) 1995.\r\n[18]\tD. B. Audretsch, P. Stephan,), Company-scientist locational links: the case of biotechnology, American Economic Review 1996 86(4): 641-652. \r\n[19]\tC. Sandstrom, K. Wennberg, M.W. Wallin, Yu. Zherlygin Public policy for academic entrepreneurship initiatives: a review and critical discussion J Technol Transf DOI 10.1007\/s10961-016-9536-x.\r\n[20]\tA. S. Bodrunova (Osipenko) Technological audit, a transfer and commercialization of technologies in structure of the market of intellectual property\/\/Economic sciences. \u2013 2012. \u2013 No. 4. \u2013 Page 163-168.\r\n[21]\tRussia in figures - 2017. Online ( http:\/\/www.gks.ru\/bgd\/ regl\/b16_11 \/Main.htm)","publisher":"World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology","index":"Open Science Index 134, 2018"}