Commercialization of Technologies, Productivity and Problems of Technological Audit in the Russian Economy

Authors: E. A. Tkachenko, E. M. Rogova, A. S. Osipenko

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.

Keywords: Technological transfer, productivity, technological audit, commercialization of technologies.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1316347

References:

[1] S. T. Khan Productivity Growth, Technological Convergence, R&D, Trade, and Labor Markets: Evidence from the French, IMF Working Paper 2006 International Monetary Fund.
[2] A. Bassanini, P. Pilat, S. Scarpetta, and P. Schreyer, “Economic Growth in the OECD Area: Recent Trends at the Aggregate and Sectoral Level,” OECD Economics Department Working Papers No. 248 2000 (Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Economics Department).
[3] A., Bassanini, E. Ernst, 2002, “Labour market institutions, product market regulations and innovation: cross country evidence,” OECD Economics Department Working Papers No. 316 (Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Economics Department).
[4] S. Scarpetta, T. Tressel, “Productivity and Convergence in a Panel of OECD Industries: Do Regulations and Institutions Matter?” OECD 2002, Economics Department Working Papers 342.
[5] A. Bernard, and C. Jones, “Productivity and Convergence Across U.S. States and Industries,” in Long-Run Economic Growth, eds. S. Durlauf, J. Helliwell and B. Raj, Physica-Verlag, 1996 Heidelberg.
[6] Bureau of Labor Statistics. Online (https://www.bls.gov/news.release/prod4.nr0.htm).
[7] Federal State Statistics Service. Online (http://www.gks.ru/wps/wcm/connect/rosstat_main/rosstat/en/figures/labour/).
[8] S. V. Valdaytsev Crisis management on the basis of innovations: Publishing house C. - Peterb. un-that, 2001
[9] P. N., Zavlin, A. Vasilyev.— Efficiency assessment innovations / St. Petersburg: Business-pressa publishing house, 1998.
[10] A. A. Zaytsev The international analysis of an industry labor productivity in 1991-2008 – M.: Institute of economy of RAS, 2014.
[11] R. A. Burgelman, L. R. Sayles, Inside Corporate Innovation: Strategy, Structure and Managerial Skills, The Free. Press, 1986. (Paper 1988)
[12] O. E. Williamson, “The Economic Institutions of Capitalism”, New York: Free Press, 1985.
[13] E Rogova. The effectiveness of business incubators as the element of the universities’ spin-off strategy in Russia//International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development. 2014. Vol. 13. No. 3. P. 265-281.
[14] A. Bergek, C. Norrman, Incubator best practice: A framework, 2008, Technovation, (28), 1-2, 20-28.
[15] H. 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.
[16] R. Wieser Research And Development Productivity And Spillovers: Empirical Evidence At The Firm Level Journal of Economic Surveys September 2005 Volume 19, Issue 4 Pages 535–696.
[17] D. B. Audretsch, Innovation and Industry Evolution (MIT Press, Cambridge) 1995.
[18] D. B. Audretsch, P. Stephan,), Company-scientist locational links: the case of biotechnology, American Economic Review 1996 86(4): 641-652.
[19] C. 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.
[20] A. S. Bodrunova (Osipenko) Technological audit, a transfer and commercialization of technologies in structure of the market of intellectual property//Economic sciences. – 2012. – No. 4. – Page 163-168.
[21] Russia in figures - 2017. Online ( http://www.gks.ru/bgd/ regl/b16_11 /Main.htm)