In the article typology, system factors and macrostructural dominants of modern state programming of inno- vative development in leading countries are considered. World experience shows that the program-target method is applied in the European Union, USA, Japan for the solution of strategic tasks of development, when it is necessary to concentrate resources to achieve specific goals. Based on the analysis of the world ex- perience in the programmatic and objective regulation of innovation processes, an assessment of its effective- ness will be made, a tool range, a functional nature and macrostructural priorities identified. In addition, the article explores the institutional and economic specification of state programming of innovative development, identifies its components, and generates elements of the national innovation system, country-specific «inno- vation nodes», the limits of innovation adaptability, and the criteria for the effectiveness of innovative devel- opment. Taking into account foreign experience and from the position of strategic growth in the Kazakhstan economy, the accumulative picture of macroeconomic priorities in the main innovation development is re- vealed.
Keywords: state program, state programming, innovative development, national innovation system, state in- novation policy.
The new state management, existing in different countries under different names (entrepreneurial gov- ernment, managerism, new public administration), presupposes a very definite set of components, with vary- ing completeness realized in individual countries during the reform of public administration [1].
The phenomenon of NPM arose within the broader movement for a «reinventing government», which began in the late 1970s in economically developed countries. According to many experts, this movement is one of the most significant changes in the philosophy of public administration, a kind of «paradigm shift» in public administration that occurred over the last century [2].
World experience shows that it is the program-target method that is used in the countries of the Europe- an Union, the USA, and Japan to solve strategic development problems, when it is necessary to concentrate resources to achieve specific goals. In the USA, approximately 50 % of government spending is carried out according to the program-target method, in France - up to 80 % [3].
Analyzing the elements of state programming, it is worth noting the specifics of programs for the de- velopment of innovations. After all, the evaluation of the effectiveness of innovative development programs has a number of features that are associated with specific features of innovation:
– support for innovation is multifaceted, its object can be the development of venture financing, the cre- ation of technology parks, the formation of innovative clusters, the development of exports of high-tech products, etc. Several dozens of indicators have been developed in practice to serve as target indicators of programs. Therefore, the difficulty is in choosing the right indicators and evaluation criteria for a particular state program event;
– despite the active development of state programs in the field of innovation, there is no single defini- tion of the term «innovation». This reduces the objectivity of the assessment;
– innovative projects are unique, experimental, and sometimes random, which makes the rigid goal set- ting inapplicable. In these conditions, it may be difficult to assess whether the results are consistent with the goals;
– a significant distribution of the effect over time. The effect of implementing a project to create an ob- ject of innovative infrastructure may appear in a decade after the establishment of the facility. When as- sessing state programs in the field of innovation development, the need to evaluate the long-term effects from their implementation, the method of studying the history of projects «historicaltracing» increases.
– in the course of innovation activity, several types of effects are formed that need to be taken into ac- count when assessing the effectiveness of government programs: economic (including budget and commer- cial), social, scientific and technical, and environmental. At the heart of innovation activity lies the interac-
tion between the subjects of innovation systems, in this connection it is important to assess the effect for each participant of the program. There are difficulties in assessing the synergetic effect of their interaction.
The problem of new state management in the sphere of innovative development is relevant in the entire world economy. However, in the conditions of our country, it should be noted that it differs from the imple- mentation of state programs and projects in developed countries. Diversification forms of business, wide de- velopment of NIOKR, long practice of using the program-target method and stable social guarantees allow developed countries to detail program-target management on current projects and objects, to systematize in- novative effects in the internal and external environment. In our conditions, innovative development follows the new industrialization of the economy and therefore has an «auxiliary» character. Additional problems include the unresolved issue of the real structure of the national innovation system in the country, the institu- tional incompleteness of the issue of adaptive capabilities of domestic innovations in the external environ- ment, and the low capacity of domestic business.
Analysis of significant publications. Preliminary scientific research on the subject area of this article can be conditionally divided into several blocks. The first block includes fundamental studies devoted to the gen- eral theoretical, methodological and applied foundations of both state management and the parameters of innovation in the works of foreign researchers A. Smith, J. Schumpeter, P. Drucker, N.D. Kondrateva, B. Santo, G. Becker and others. The second block of scientific research in this subject area is directly related to the issues of state programming of innovative development. This is the subject of the works of N. Manning, N. Parison, D. Okimoto, D. Sadler, G.P. Hatry, J. Blondal, J.K.Kristensen, C. Vanderwil, T. Nakahara, P.M. Sende, M.Carstedt and others. Studies of the condition of state programming of innova- tions in transformational economies are presented in the works by Stefanin A.L., Tambovtseva V.L., R.A. Kochkarova, G.G. Balaian, L.I. Yakobson et al. A review of previous scientific research shows that with the scientific interest in the state management of innovation processes, the analysis of the specification of state innovation development programs, as well as the modernization of programs in projects within the transformational economy, has not been properly reflected as an independent subject of scientific and practi- cal research . In particular, the subject boundaries of the model of rational state programming of the national innovation system have not yet been determined, nor has the comparative factor algorithm of cluster and multiplication effects been revealed in the implementation of innovative development programs.
Main results of the study.
The program-target method of planning and management has been used for many years in most devel- oped countries of the world and has already established itself as an effective tool for implementing state eco- nomic and social policies. The program-target management method in a broad sense is the development and deepening of an integrated approach to solving management problems. Its merits include the following:
– financial resources are distributed not by types of costs, but by programs or strategic goals.
– programs are formulated on the basis of common goals and strategic priorities.
– the program-target budget takes into account the long-term consequences of the decisions made, al- lows you to compare different ways of achieving the goals set, to choose the optimal solutions, taking into consideration the possibility of implementing different development scenarios.
– program managers have the right to independently decide on the best way to solve them within the limits of the funds allocated for this purpose. At the same time, their responsibility for the final result is strengthened and takes a specific character.
– the draft budget of the target program is presented in such a way that it makes it possible to clearly follow plans and priorities for the planned period, expressed in both financial indicators and social efficiency indicators.
The basic concept of the program-target method is the concept of a «program». Each program includes:
goals and objectives of the program, services provided by the program, and a group of consumers of these services, the activities necessary to achieve the goals and objectives, indicators of program performance, the resources necessary to implement the program, the risks associated with the program [4].
State programming is the primary regulator of the parameters of innovative development of the domes- tic economy. Aggregate evaluation of the effectiveness of state programs of innovative development reveals both positive results of the innovation segment of the economy and reproduced anomies and factors of the compression of innovations. In this regard, the qualitative revision of existing approaches to program-target planning and state programming, as well as a general increase in the efficiency of the implementation of state programs in the sphere of the development of the national innovation system, becomes especially topical.
World experience in effective state programming…
The countries implementing this approach include Canada, Japan, South Korea, Austria, Germany, France, Finland, the USA, Turkey, Thailand, Hungary, Bulgaria, etc. [5-8].
The first countries that focused on effective management were the USA (in the mid-fifties of the last century), Sweden (from the beginning of the 1910s) and Great Britain (since the beginning of the I980s). In 1990-2000 almost all developed countries created and introduced into the practice of executive power to some extent the individual elements of the results management.
Analyzing the elements of state programming, it is worth noting the specifics of programs for the de- velopment of innovations.
For effective innovative development of the country, first of all, it is necessary to analyze foreign expe- rience with a view to its possible adaptation in the framework of domestic state programs. This analytical discourse should be built in the following coordinates:
Firstly, the definition of global trends in terms of financing innovative development within the frame- work of national programs. This will allow rationalizing domestic state programs in terms of budget design;
Secondly, the allocation of basic innovative angles in a particular country, which will allow in the do- mestic environment to identify adequate innovations that provide strategic and multiplicative effects.
Thirdly, the synthesis of country experience in its accumulated form, as ideologems for the strategic plan for the development of our economy.
Thus, the core of state innovation development programs is the system of their financing. After all, it is financing that determines the possible range of innovative abilities.
Financing of scientific programs by the state, or innovative ability, plays a decisive role in determining the circle of countries leading in the world economic process. Innovations allow creating advantages in the most competitive sectors of the economy. Their effective use is for the country the most important instru- ment for realizing the most important tasks of social and economic development: ensuring national security, protecting the environment, raising the level and quality of life of the population.
High-tech countries such as the USA, Japan, the UK, Germany, Singapore, China are constantly in- creasing their investment in NIOKR, while innovative financing in innovation countries is a program of na- tional importance.
In the USA, the active participation of the state in investing in NIOKR is based on the triune of the fol- lowing postulates:
– scientific knowledge is the key to the future;
– technology is the engine of socio-economic development;
– responsibility of the government is to promote scince and technology [9].
Thus, financing of innovative development of the USA is the most wide and diversified. For all econo- mies, this option seems to be a leader.
Noteworthy is the organization of innovation and its financing in Japan, which ranks second in the world after the USA in terms of the level of development of science and technology.
The Law on Science and Technology (1995) established fundamental provisions proceeding from the fact that stimulating science and technology is the main direction of Japan's movement in the 21st century. In development of the law and with the purpose of carrying out a comprehensive and systematic policy of stim- ulating science and technology in Japan, the General Plan for Science and Technology was adopted, the pri- orities of which are:
– implementation of research works and their improvement within the NIOKR system;
– development and improvement of NIOKR infrastructure;
– stimulation of various forms of financing;
– an increase in the number of research projects in private universities, the corporate sector;
– stimulation of international scientific and technological cooperation;
– promoting the development of NIOKR in various regions of the country;
– Encouraging interest in science and technology [10].
At present, Japan's innovation policy is formed and carried out in accordance with the State Financial Plan for Science and Technology, which provides:
– increase in public funding for NIOKR from 0.7 to 1.0 % of VVP;
– preparation of 30 Nobel laureates for 50 years;
– support of NIOKR in healthcare, information technology, environmental protection, nanotechnology;
– increasing support for young scientists;
– to enhance the competitiveness of industrial technologies through cooperation between corporations, the government and the academic sector;
– reforming the education system in the field of science and technology [11].
Thus, financing of innovative development in Japan is dominated by FPG, and state programs stimulate and coordinate innovation. This financing option can be described as «anchor».
Financing of innovative development in the European Union, which is a competitor to the United States and Japan in this field of activity, occurs within the framework of the framework programs of technological research. The European Union considers the priority areas of research as:
– life sciences, including genetics;
biotechnology in healthcare;
fight against serious diseases (3.4 billion euros);
nanotechnology, «intelligent» multifunctional materials, new devices and production processes (1.3 billion euros);
aeronautics and space (1.1 billion euros), sustainable development of the ecological system (2.1 bil- lion euros);
development of a number of topics on the issues of international cooperation in the field of technolo- gy and scientific cooperation [12].
Significant monetary resources of the euro are allocated for financing of information society technolo- gies. This financing option can be described as a variant of «joint innovation design».
So, from the positions of the avant-garde of innovative development (USA, Japan and the European Un- ion), we have identified the basic financing mechanisms. Based on the analysis of the role of innovative fi- nancing in ensuring the competitiveness and technological security of the state, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. Innovative development of society becomes a task of national importance, in the solution of which the investment component is given the highest priority.
2. The role of economically developed countries is to regulate, stimulate and coordinate the funding of science and technology for all participants in the innovation process.
3. Providing state support and stimulating innovative financing allowed countries such as the USA and Japan to ensure competitiveness in the leading industries and take the leading positions in the world market.
For example, in the aviation and rocket and space industry, the USA share now stands at 40 %, Japan - 20 %, while the UK share is 9 %, Germany - 7 %; in the telecommunications and navigation sectors, the USA share in the world market reached 20 %, Japan - 17 %, Germany - 7 %, Great Britain - 6 %; in scientific instrument making, the USA share is 27.5 %, Japan - 17.5 % Germany 14 %, Great Britain - 6 % [13].
4. In order to ensure the technological safety of the state, special attention is paid to financing high-tech areas, such as nanotechnology, genetic engineering, information technology, and biotechnology. So, for ex- ample, in the USA a special program «National initiative in the field of nanotechnologies» is developed. It provides for the coordination of efforts of a number of agencies interested in accelerating the development of various areas of nanotechnology. Among them are the National Science Foundation, the Ministry of Defense, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and so on. [14].
At the same time, it is necessary to find out innovative nodes that provide high competitiveness and strategic growth opportunities.
In this aspect, the absolute leader is the USA, since the entire economy of the 21st century in them is aimed at innovative breakthroughs. The USA innovation development model is a model for the formation of an open information society driven by market forces. In the 1970s, a special information program was launched in the USA to popularize the latest technologies with the help of the National Center for Scientific and Technical Information and a consortium of federal laboratories, which include about 300 state scientific departments. These funds contain records of scientific works of 200 federal organizations, 3/4 of the data falls on the Ministries of Defense, Energy and NASA. The National Center annually cooperates with 100,000 industrial firms and scientific organizations of the USA [15].
The USA economy used a mechanism for the commercialization of scientific and technical products that was owned by the state or purchased for budgetary means of transferring new technology from laborato- ries to the industrial sector, also including secondary use.
However, for our economy, the most popular is the experience of countries whose innovative mecha- nism was built on the basis of the industrial dominant. In this aspect, the USA experience seems to us to be
World experience in effective state programming…
avant-garde, but not yet acceptable. From the point of view of strategic development, the experience of Ger- many is of interest in this respect.
In Germany, the highest indicator of the share of employment in the intensive sectors of the economy, as well as the share of surplus gross value. Thus, the share of employed in intensive and high technology in Germany is 27.7 % of the total number of employees in production, and the share of the surplus value of the- se branches in the entire production sector in Germany is 25.9 % [10]. State economic policy is based on the realization that it is public investment in scientific research that stimulates the active involvement of private investments in this sphere. It should be noted that the basis of the economic mechanism of the state scientific policy is a combination of competitive budgetary financing of innovative projects, individual researchers and infrastructure with various methods of indirect stimulation of scientific activity. Among the latter, it is neces- sary to identify tax mechanisms, depreciation and credit policies, effective protection of copyright, stimula- tion of the development of small and medium-sized businesses on an innovative trajectory. It is the experi- ence of innovative development in the sphere of small and medium-sized business that is relevant for us in the practical aspect.
In Germany, small business is one of the most actively and steadily developing sectors of the economy.
Most of the innovative developments in Germany are conducted at small enterprises. The share of small and medium-sized businesses in the total number of registered taxpayers in Germany is 99.6 %, accounting for 75 % of patents issued in the country. About 32 thousand German small and medium-sized enterprises spe- cialize in investing in research and development. About 110,000 small and medium-sized companies are en- gaged in the commercialization of the results of these studies.
What are the institutional aspects of supporting this process? Three institutional channels are of interest here: federal programs of innovation activity, the creation of a federal innovation infrastructure and the activ- ities of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
Thus, at the federal and regional levels, more than 500 programs are being implemented that promote investment and innovation activity. The most well-known program in the field of stimulating innovative de- velopment is the special government program «General concept of scientific and technical policy for small and medium-sized firms», which provides financing for risky activities, improving the conditions for tech- nology transfer, providing scientific personnel [16].
At the Office of the Federal Chancellor of Germany, a Council for Innovation and Growth was estab- lished, which includes experts from the fields of science, economics and politics. The main task of the coun- cil is to improve the framework conditions for promoting scientific research in the field of high technology and innovation among small and medium-sized enterprises. Within the framework of the program «New Im- pulses for Innovation and Growth», networks of cooperation of small and medium-sized enterprises are or- ganized in the following sectors: production technologies, materials technologies , healthcare and medical technology, information technology, microsystems, energy technologies, environmental protection technolo- gies, transport technologies, optical technologies ologii, biotechnology, security, technology, entertainment technology, services, technology, nanotechnology [9].
The federal infrastructure supporting small and medium-sized enterprises includes 374 centers for the diffusion of new technologies, 15 information centers and 115 export support centers. Approximately 25 % of small enterprises are actively involved in the production of export products. In Germany, there are more than 180 incubators and technoparks interacting with universities, research centers and large industrial com- panies [9].
Thus, in order to activate the innovative activity of small and medium-sized businesses in Kazakhstan, the experience of Germany can be taken into service. What innovative nodes in the world economy are also of interest?
In our opinion, in the country aspect, the following picture is formed. So, an innovative hub in the de- velopment of Japan is the creation of technology parks. In the 1980s. management has launched a global program for the production of technopolis as a balanced, organic combination of high-tech industry, science and spacious living areas. Firms operating in high-tech industries were allowed to write off in the first year up to 30 % of the cost of equipment and up to 15 % of the cost of buildings and structures, and the state paid one-third of the costs of scientific research by small firms and laboratories [17].
The diversity and flexibility of the policy of benefits for participants of production entities on the ex- ample considered is the main tool of the mechanism for improving innovation in the country.
France carries out a whole complex of activities aimed at the development of the point-clusters (budget- ary financing of scientific research conducted in the past, creating a specialized structure of governance,