History of the creation and development of innovation. Technogenic civilization: description, history, development, problems and prospects. Development of innovative activities in Russia

From history of innovation

E.A. Shkatova, E.A. Lepekha (SVSU, Magadan)

Under innovationinnovation" - innovation, novelty, innovativeness) refers to the use of innovations in the form of new technologies, types of products and services, new forms of organization of production and labor, service and management. In the 2009 Modern Dictionary of Foreign Words, innovation is interpreted as an innovation. In the 1998 Dictionary of a Practical Psychologist, innovation is interpreted - in the socio-psychological aspect - as the creation and implementation of various types of innovations that generate significant changes in social practice.

The emergence of the term “innovation” is associated with the long evolution of the term “development”, which originated in the philosophical teachings of Aristotle, and then in classical Latin literature (Priscian, Corippus). It should be noted that Aristotle used this term in the everyday sense - “unraveling opinions”, and Cicero - as “opening a book”.

A fairly broad definition of innovation is given by B.A. Reisberg and L.Sh. Lozovsky, believing that innovation is an innovation in the field of technology, engineering, labor organization and management, which is based on the use of scientific achievements, as well as the use of these innovations in various areas and areas of activity.

K.R. McConnell and SL. By this concept, Bru means the launch of a new product, the introduction of new production methods, or the use of new forms of business organization.

F. Kotler defines innovation as a product or technology that has been put into production and has already entered the market, perceived by the consumer as new or having certain unique properties.

B. Twiss defines innovation as a process in which an invention or idea acquires economic content.

F. Nixon believes that innovation is a set of technical, production and commercial activities that lead to the appearance on the market of new and improved industrial processes and equipment.

I. Schumpeter interprets innovation as a new scientific and organizational combination of production factors, motivated by the entrepreneurial spirit.

Innovation became the subject of scientific study only in the 20th century.

For example, in science, the term “innovation” began to be used in the 19th century in the study of anthropology and ethnography. In the 20th century, the term “innovation” was introduced into science as an economic category. The initiators of innovation were entrepreneurs (for example, G. Ford, the founder of a car manufacturing companyFordMotorCompany. He developed a system of mass production of cars based on a continuous conveyor, which he first used in the automotive industry), political and government figures (Schumpeter, Kondratiev, etc.), architects (I. Hofmann, E. Saarinen, G. Hering, etc.) , artists, musicians (A. Sachs, P. Barth, T. Edison, etc.).

Let us take a closer look at how the theories of “innovation” developed.

N.D. made a great contribution to the foundation of the theory of innovation. Kondratiev - economist, founder of the theory of economic cycles, theoretically substantiated the “new economic policy” in the USSR. He linked technological and economic innovation waves with radical changes in other areas of society. N.D. Kondratiev laid the foundations of a general theory of innovation, covering not only technology and economics, but also the socio-political sphere, as well as the mechanism of interaction of innovations in various spheres of society.

In essence, Joseph Schumpeter is considered the founder of the theory of innovation, who picked up and developed the main ideas of N.D. Kondratiev in this area. Joseph Schumpeter is an Austrian and American economist, political scientist, sociologist and historian of economic thought. He focused his attention on economic innovation and praised the role of the innovative entrepreneur in economic progress. The research of Kondratiev’s like-minded person, Pitirim Sorokin, is considered important. He laid the foundations for innovation in the sociocultural sphere, understanding it in a broad sense - not only art and culture, social and political relations, but also the dynamics of scientific discoveries and inventions, interstate and civil wars. He also gave quantitative estimates of innovation waves in a number of areas of spiritual reproduction.

In the second half of the 20th century. theories of innovation began to develop rapidly: Arnold Toynbee studied cyclesIN" the dynamics of local civilizations, the periodic change of their generations. Fernand Braudel, following R. Cameron, substantiated the presence of not only half-century Kondratieff, but also secular trends lasting from 150 to 300 years, believing that longer historical cycles do not exist.

The Nobel lecture of Simon Kuznets was devoted to the problem of the relationship between innovation and economic growth, where he formulated new approaches to the theory of innovation, which developed the ideas of Joseph Schumpeter and John Bernal. S. Kuznets introduced the concept of epochal innovations; he believed that they underlie the transition from one historical era to another. He believed that the main breakthrough in the development of human knowledge was provided by epochal innovations or innovations. S. Kuznets said that economic history can be divided into economic eras, each of which is defined by an epoch-making innovation with its inherent growth characteristics. According to S. Kuznets, it is epochal innovations and the waves of basic innovations that realize their potential that underlie the transition not only of the economy, but of the entire society as a whole, from one stage to another.

A significant contribution to the theory of the innovative path of development was made by B. Twiss (American economist), who emphasized the essence of the process of innovation, in which an invention or scientific idea acquires economic content and a creative character innovation activity. He also identified the factors that determine the success of innovations.

New ideas in the development of the theory of innovation are associated with the deep crisis of the world economy in the mid-70s and early 80s. This transition took place against the backdrop of a global energy crisis and changing prices.

Significant contributions to the development of the theory of innovation at the present stage have been made by such economists as Adam B. Jaffe, Josh Lerner, Scott Stern, M. Giaratana, S. Torrisi and Alessandro Pagano. In their studies on economic well-being, they cited examples of economic growth in developing countries through innovation. They also tried to identify various factors of economic growth. In their opinion, one of the factors in the innovative development of the economy is education. Special education plays a major role in supporting technological progress, just as the expenditures of large companies on research and development, together with the efforts of small entrepreneurs, turn out to be an addition to the innovation process, which means that the result of mutual actions is more useful for the economy than individual actions.

Proponents of the same theory are A. Arora and A. Gambardela, who believed that highly educated specialists are the main factor in innovative development. In their opinion, in all countries where the high-tech sector of the economy is developing, there are highly educated specialists relative to the level of development of the given region. That is, the internal resources of the region contribute to the development of certain industries, for example, in Japan - the electronics industry, in Finland - telecommunications, etc.

Thus, education provides technical knowledge and skills to entrepreneurs related to the process of innovation and economic growth, and also stimulates creativity and imagination and facilitates the process of adapting innovations to life.

According to scientists K.R. McConnell and SL. Bru, large companies are a factor in the innovative path of economic development, since the latest technologies require the use of large capital, large markets, a complex, centralized and strictly integrated market, rich and reliable sources of raw materials. That is, only large companies can provide a technical breakthrough, since they have sufficient resources.

M. Giaratana, S. Torrisi and A. Pagano adhere to the same theory. They substantiated their views on the practice of Ireland, where the arrival of transnational companies preceded the growth of the innovative sector of the economy. But at the same time, they identified three more factors of economic development: an excess of highly qualified personnel, international connections, and domestic demand.

It should be noted that the modern Russian school of innovation, in unity with the theory of cycles and crises, dates back to 1988 in the works of Yu.V. Yakovets. Yu.V. Yakovets - doctor economic sciences, Professor of the Department of Theory and Practice government regulation market economy of the Russian Academy. They proposed a classification of innovations (technical innovations) according to the level of novelty, introduced the concept of the innovation cycle, defined its structure, revealed the connection with scientific, inventive and innovation cycles, considered the mechanism for the development of innovations, and characterized differential scientific and technical income.

In the domestic literature, the problem of innovation has long been considered in the system of economic research. However, over time, the problem arose of assessing the qualitative characteristics of innovative changes in all spheres of social life, but it is impossible to determine these changes only within the framework of economic theories.

We will dwell in more detail on innovations developing in the educational system. Innovation is inherent in any education - this is a characteristic feature of world pedagogy. Innovative pedagogical activities in Russia were carried out

not only in the last 20 years, but even in Soviet times, although it took place in a regulated manner, mainly on the basis of experimental schools. Pedagogical innovation processes have become the subject of special study in the West since the late 1950s, and in Russia since the 1980s.

Consequently, people have been talking about innovation in the Russian educational system since the 80s of the 20th century, and until now this phenomenon is one of the most uncertain and ambiguous from the standpoint of the categorical apparatus of pedagogy. As noted by N.Yu. Postalyuk, it was in the 80s in pedagogy that the problems of innovation and, accordingly, its conceptual support became the subject of special research.

In the late 80s and early 90s of the 20th century, the experience of innovative teachers (S.A. Amonashvili, I.P. Volkov, N.N. Dubinin, E.N. Ilyin, V.F.) became the property of the pedagogical community. Shatalov, M.P. Shchetinin, etc.), which stimulates and activates innovative processes in the domestic school. Since the 1990s domestic education is beginning to actively borrow foreign pedagogical experience. The creative use of foreign teaching experience is becoming an important source of innovation. Consequently, the modern innovative “direction” of pedagogical activity is a natural, socially and historically conditioned stage in the development of domestic education.

In the last 20 years, the problem of innovations in the field of education began to be considered in the works of domestic teachers and psychologists: N.V. Gorbunova, V.I. Zagvyazinsky,M.B.. Clarina,B. C. Lazareva, V.Ya. Lyaudis, M.M. Potashnik, S.D. Polyakova, V.A. Slastenina, V.I. Slobodchikova, T.I. Shamova, O.G. Yusufbekova and others. The terms “innovation in education” and “pedagogical innovation,” used as synonyms, were scientifically substantiated and introduced into the categorical apparatus of pedagogy by I.R. Yusufbekova.

Therefore, we can conclude that, continuing the tradition of N.D. Kondratiev, O. Spengler, J. Schumpeter, P. Sorokin, innovation researchers extended them not only to technology and economics, but also to other spheres of society, including science, political and social life, culture, ethics, religion.

Bibliography:

1. Akimov A.A. Systemological foundations of innovation / A. A. Akimov. - St. Petersburg. : Peter, 2012. - 38 p.

2. Bell D. The Coming Post-Industrial Society / D. Bell. - M.: Academy, 2009. - 786 p.

3. Gamidov G.S. Innovative economics: strategy, policy, decisions / G.S. Gamidov, T.A. Ismailov. - St. Petersburg. : Philosopher, 2011.- 132 p.

4. Emelin V.A. Technological temptations of the information society: the limit of external extensions of man // Questions of Philosophy. -2010. -No. 5.-S. 84-90.

5. Erofeeva N.I. Project management in education // Public education. - 2002. - No. 5. - P. 94.

6. Ivanova V.V. Knowledge-based economy as a stage of economic development of society // Bulletin of the International Nobel Economic Forum. - 2012. - No. 1. -S. 192-198.

7. Kuzmin M.N. The problem of preserving the unified educational space of Russia // Pedagogy. - 2004. - No. 4. - P. 3.

8. Mamchur E.A. Fundamental science and modern technologies // Questions of Philosophy. - 2011. - No. 3. - P. 80-89.

9. Orlova A.I. Revival of education or its reform? // Teaching history at school. - 2006. - No. 1. - P. 37.

10. Foster L. Nanotechnology. Science, innovation and opportunities / L. Foster. - M.: Tekhnosphere, 2008. - 352 p.

Innovation has existed for many thousands of years. Our ancestors were engaged in epochal, or basic, innovations that changed the face of society and moved it forward. And this was long before science was formed and a small layer of scientists involved in it became isolated. Therefore, it would be reckless to say that science is the only source of innovation. In recent centuries, when the innovative explosion of the industrial era occurred, scientists were not always the initiators of major innovations. The initiators of innovation were entrepreneurs (for example, Ford), politicians and government officials, architects, artists, and musicians.

Although innovative practice has existed for many millennia, innovation became the subject of special scientific study only in the 20th century.

In the formation and development of the theory of innovation, three significant stages emerge:

• - 10-30s - formation of the fundamental foundations of the theory (the period of basic innovations in this area of ​​scientific knowledge);
• - 40-60s - development and detailing of basic innovative ideas of the previous period;
• - since the mid-70s. - a new theoretical breakthrough associated with the development and dissemination of the technological structure, a wave of epoch-making basic innovations during the formation of post-industrial society. This period will probably cover the first decades of the 21st century.

The formation of the foundations of the theory of innovation took place within the framework of the development of a general theory of cycles and crises, primarily in the economic and technological spheres.

N.D. made a great contribution to the foundation of the theory of innovation. Kondratiev. Expounding the doctrine of large cycles of economic conditions lasting approximately half a century, he substantiated the natural connection between the “upward” and “downward” waves of these cycles with the waves of technical inventions and their practical use.

N.D. Kondratiev links technological and economic innovation waves with radical changes in other spheres of social life: “... wars and social upheavals are included in the rhythmic process of development of large cycles and turn out to be not the initial forces of this development, but a form of its manifestation. But once they arise, they, of course, in turn have a powerful, sometimes perturbing influence on the pace and direction of economic dynamics.”

Thus, N.D. Kondratiev laid the foundations of a general theory of innovation, covering not only technology and economics, but also the socio-political sphere, and also revealing the mechanism of interaction of innovations in various spheres of society.

Joseph Schumpeter is considered the founder of the theory of innovation, who picked up and developed the main ideas of N.D. Kondratiev in this area. Schumpeter focused his attention on economic innovation and highly valued the role of the innovative entrepreneur in economic progress.

Schumpeter's main theories of innovation:

• - innovation activity as the most important function of entrepreneurs;
• - distinguishing between product innovations and process innovations, radical (basic) and improving, technological and economic innovations;
• - the place of innovation in the cyclical dynamics of the economy;
• - the inevitability of overcoming the force of inertia and environmental resistance.

Kondratiev's like-minded person, Pitirim Sorokin, laid the foundations for innovation in the sociocultural sphere, understanding it in a broad sense - not only art and culture, social and political relations, but also the dynamics of scientific discoveries and inventions, interstate and civil wars. Published in 1937-1941. in the four-volume “Social and Cultural Dynamics,” he examined, in particular, the trend in the dynamics of technical inventions over more than 5 millennia of the history of society, as well as the largest innovations observed over the millennia in other spheres of the spiritual life of society. Noting the presence of long-term fluctuations in sociocultural dynamics, expressed in a change in the predominance of ideational, sensual and integral sociocultural types, Sorokin denied the existence of a general trend of historical progress and considered these fluctuations aimless, which is difficult to agree with. They gave quantitative estimates of innovation waves in a number of areas of spiritual reproduction.

So, over three decades of the 20th century. the fundamental foundations of the theory of innovation, especially technological and sociocultural, were laid.

Further development of the theory of innovation - from the 40s to the mid-70s. XX century - is not characterized by such fundamental breakthroughs in this area of ​​cognition. This was prevented by the Second World Wave and the post-war arms race, when efforts were aimed at mastering and disseminating the basic innovations of the 4th N.D. cycle. Kondratiev and the technological structure adequate to him; research was more practical, applied in nature. However, the theory of innovation has advanced significantly.

Among the fundamental works of this period, noteworthy is the major monograph of the outstanding English scientist John Bernal, “Science in history,” published in London in 1954 and in the USSR in 1956.

During this period, much attention was paid to the relationship between innovation and economic growth. The Nobel lecture of Simon Kuznets, given by him in December 1917, was devoted to this problem. It formulated a number of new approaches to the theory of innovation, developing the ideas of Schumpeter and Bernal.

• 1. Kuznets introduced the concept of epochal innovations that underlie the transition from one historical era to another.
• 2. The revolutionary acceleration of economic growth in the industrial era was caused, according to Kuznets, by an epoch-making innovation - the accelerated development of science became a new source of growth.
• 3. Discussing the social consequences of innovations, Kuznets notes that they can be both positive and negative. The economic function of the state is to stimulate their growth and structural changes, to analyze, select or discard legal and institutional innovations of new production potential. Without innovation, science languishes; the wave of innovation serves as fertile ground for the flourishing of scientific research.
• 4. Technological innovations are interconnected with innovations in other areas of society.

The current stage in the development of the theory of innovation dates back to the publication of the monograph of the German scientist Gerhard Mensch “Technological stalemate: innovation overcomes depression” and subsequent publications and international conferences devoted to the theory of long-wave oscillations in the economy of Kondratieff and Schumpeter.

Soviet scientists were actively involved in the development of the theory of cycles and innovation. A series of monographs on these problems was published by Yu.V. Yakovets.

A fundamental study of long-term trends in the dynamics of science, technology and economics was carried out by Academician A.I. Anchishkin. He identified three epoch-making revolutions in the history of scientific and technological progress that realized clusters of basic innovations:

• - the first industrial revolution of the late 18th - early 19th centuries;
• - the second industrial revolution of the last third of the 19th - early 20th centuries;
• - the third industrial revolution, which began in the middle of the 20th century. and developed into a scientific and technological revolution.

A review of the theories of long-term trends in the capitalist economy by S.M. was published. Menshikov and L.A. Klimenko on this problem, monograph by L.S. Baryutin on technical innovations in industry, V.I. Kushlin on updating the production apparatus.

The legacy of N.D. was returned to Russian science. Kondratiev, his doctrine of large cycles of market conditions and associated long-term fluctuations in economic dynamics. During this period, a strong innovation school emerged in Russia. A new wave in the development of the theory of innovation is associated with the deep crisis of the world economy in the mid-70s and early 80s. XX century, due to the transition to the 5th Kondratieff cycle. This transition took place against the backdrop of a global energy crisis and a price revolution. history origin innovation

The main achievements in the development of the theory of innovation in the second half of the 20th century:

• 1. The focus of researchers was on long-wave fluctuations in the economy and society and the associated waves of basic innovations. American scientists J. Odelski and W. Thompson date their beginning to 1930.
• 2. Along with long-wave fluctuations in invention, innovation, and economic activity, super-long secular and millennial waves of epochal innovations were put forward and studied, transforming not only technology and the economy, but also the entire structure of society.

Arnold Toynbee studied the cycles in the dynamics of local civilizations, the periodic change of their generations. Fernand Braudel, following R. Cameron, substantiated the presence of not only half-century Kondratieff trends, but also secular trends lasting from 150 to 300 years, believing that longer historical cycles do not exist.

3. Continuing the tradition of N.D. Kondratiev, O. Spengler, J. Schumpeter, P. Sorokin, innovation researchers extended them not only to technology and economics, but also to other spheres of society, including science, political and social life, culture, ethics, religion.

Arthur Schlesinger the Younger, in his book “Cycles of American History,” put forward the idea of ​​political cycles lasting 30 years - the cycles of the active life of one generation. During the first 15 years, each generation is characterized by high innovative activity, and then takes a conservative position. This provision applies not only to politics, but also to other areas of human activity. The law of generational change operates throughout history, largely determining the rhythm of fluctuations in innovative activity.

In the works of Yu. Yakovets in 1984 and 1988, the relationship between the cyclical dynamics of science, inventions, innovations and changes in generations of machines and technological structures, the development of efficiency and prices of technology was studied, and the concepts of environmental, educational, organizational, production, and management cycles were introduced. In the next (1999) work by Yu. Yakovets, “Cycles. Crises. Forecasts,” all types of cycles in the development of society are systematized as manifestations of the general pattern of cyclical genetic dynamics. The cycles identified are ecological, demographic, technological, economic, socio-political, in the spiritual life of society (in science, culture, education, ethics, religion), generalizing historical cycles.

• 4. At the new stage of development of the theory of innovation, much attention is paid to its territorial aspect, fluctuations in the level of innovative activity of different countries and civilizations.
• 5. Particular attention was paid to the economic mechanism for implementing innovation. Most researchers are of the view that it is necessary to combine a market competitive mechanism (especially in relation to improving innovations) with active government support for basic innovations that determine the country's competitiveness. Serious attention was paid to innovation management, practical issues commercialization of technologies.
• 6. A new word in the development of the theory of innovation was the substantiation of the concept of technological quasi-rent. In fact, the main result and incentive for innovation is obtaining excess profits during the period of the spread of effective innovations.

These proposals were presented at the round table of the global civil society forum of the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg on September 2, 2002.

Thus, considering the entire path of development of the theory of innovation, one can see that the ideas of cyclical dynamics of Nikolai Kondratiev, Pitirim Sorokin, Joseph Schumpeter, Gerhard Mensch were the basis for the further development of this scientific direction.

The emergence of innovation as a science is due to the entire course of historical development of social production, especially during the period of its industrialization. In this process, it is not difficult to trace certain patterns: 1. sporadically changing phases of revival of production, 2. its rapid rise, 3. the onset of a crisis of overproduction, turning into a stage of depression. These phases are considered by researchers as a certain property inherent in the economy of machine production.

In general, the term “innovation” was originally associated with changes in culture in the 19th century. In V. Dahl’s explanatory dictionary, “innovation” is defined as “... the introduction of novelty, new customs, orders.” At the same time, there is a clarification that “...not every innovation is useful”...

However, a number of researchers consider the process of development of science and technology, starting from the ancient world, the ancient Paleolithic era, which was marked by the invention of the first tools and primitive technology. Indeed, these processes can be considered innovative, given that they became one of the determining factors in the social division of labor and the formation of social and production relations in primitive society. Invention of stone tools, development of stone processing methods during the Mesolithic era; the emergence of complex tools and the emergence on this basis of technologies for building dwellings (dugouts, pile buildings), grinding, polishing, drilling, the emergence of mining and the improvement of stone processing methods; invention of the drilling machine. Invention of the wheel and wheeled vehicles. The origins of textile and fur production in Late Neolithic era. Chalcolithic. First use of metal. Fuse. The appearance of the first copper tools and weapons. The dominance of hoe farming. Construction of adobe above-ground dwellings and dugouts.

Antique technology. The transition from barbarism to ancient civilization. Technique of the slave-owning production method. Specialization in agricultural and handicraft production. The emergence of inventions. Development of mining. Development of military equipment. Improvement of roads and means of transportation. Using a rotating motion to create a wheeled cart. Sailing shipbuilding as a consequence of the development of trade. Weaving craft and improvement of textile technology. Development of agricultural machinery. Invention of the potter's wheel. The origin of writing and the appearance of writing instruments.

Middle Ages. Feudal mode of production. Development of handicraft production. The emergence of workshops. Production specialization. The birth of manufactories. The origins of machine production. Development of mining. Development of metallurgy and metalworking. Improving military equipment. The invention of gunpowder. Emergence and development firearms. Development of land and water transport. The spread of navigation through the use of magnetism and the creation of a compass. Mechanical watches. Making and using glasses. Use of natural energy. The appearance of water and wind engines, mills. Development of book printing and paper production.

However, these processes relate to innovation processes that determine the main stages of development of human society as a whole. If we talk about the development of innovation as a special scientific sphere of social life, then this periodization looks somewhat different. Here we can highlight the main stages of studying the problems of innovative practice, which allows us to judge the stages of the formation of innovation itself as a science. As mentioned above, in the 19th century innovation was associated with sociocultural changes. In the 20th century, the term “innovation” was adopted by economic science. In 1909, W. Sombart, in his article “The Capitalist Entrepreneur,” substantiated the concept of the entrepreneur as an innovator. He comes to the conclusion that the main function of an entrepreneur, which is to release technical innovations to the market for profit, encourages him not to be content with getting something new, but to strive to distribute this new thing as widely as possible...

First stage(from the beginning of the twentieth century to the end of the 70s of the twentieth century) is associated with the research of N.D. Kondratiev, J. Schumpeter, S. Kuznets, whose theoretical and methodological principles focused on understanding innovation mainly as a means of economic growth, overcoming the economic crisis and technical and technological modernization of production and formed the basis technical and economic approach to the study of innovation processes. In 1911 J. Schumpeter proposed a general concept of innovative entrepreneurship. He drew attention to the fact that a dynamic entrepreneur invents new combinations of factors of production, which are the source of entrepreneurial profit. J. Schumpeter identified 5 such combinations:

1. Release of a new product or a known product of a different quality.

2. Introduction of a new previously unknown production method.

3. Penetration into a new market.

4. Obtaining new sources of raw materials or semi-finished products.

5. Organizational restructuring, including the creation of a monopoly or its liquidation.

After the Great Depression of the early 1930s, the phrase “innovation policy of the company” became popular among managers in the United States, and then in other developed capitalist countries, as a symbol of the manager’s ability to lead the company out of depression. During this period, empirical studies of innovations carried out by various organizations and enterprises began. These studies focused on 3 main areas: 1) the firm as an initiator and creator of innovation, its sensitivity to innovation, dependence on organizational structures and management methods. 2) Marketing or the behavior of a company in the market, risk factors, methods for predicting the success of innovations, economic indicators of the effectiveness of individual stages and innovations in general. The main research paradigm is open systems theory combined with a game approach, where the company interacts with the market as an environment and where the final stages of the innovation process are the result of the actions of many subjects, each of whom acts in accordance with their interests, taking into account the likely reactions of partners. 3) Government policy regarding the innovative activities of firms, supporting their competitiveness in the global market. Management theory becomes the leading paradigm.

The combination of these areas of research is called “innovation”.

Such trends in understanding the goals of innovation processes dominated until the 80s of the twentieth century and were reflected in the works of both domestic (A.N. Aganbegyan, L.S. Blyakhman, V.S. Rappoport) and foreign (J.A. Allen, K. Pavitt, E. Rogers, W. Roberts, L. Ullman, W. Walker, etc.) researchers. The results of research activities during this period made it possible to monitor technical and technological innovations and correlate them with changes in economic indicators, which contributed to the formation of innovation as a branch of science abroad by the 70s of the twentieth century.

In general, the first stage of the development of innovation as a science is associated with the study of factors influencing the effectiveness of innovations, the accumulation of empirical material, transformed into numerous classifications that are irreducible to each other.

Second phase(from the early 80s of the twentieth century to the mid-90s of the twentieth century) is characterized orientation towards a comprehensive study of innovation processes and specific innovations, taking into account the factors that determine their effective implementation, which determines the beginning of research into the social background of innovation activity. At this time, the first educational training programs for participants in innovation activities appeared, with the goal of consulting on the complex practical problems related to the implementation of innovations (I.V. Bestuzhev-Lada, A.I. Prigozhin, B.V. Sazonov, N.I. Lapin, V.S. Tolstoy, V.D. Hartman, V. Shtok and Belarusian researchers - V.A. Alexandrov; G.A. Nesvetailov). During this period, a temporary gap in the process of institutionalization of innovation in domestic science is revealed, which manifested itself in its acquisition of the status of a scientific direction only by the 90s of the twentieth century. In domestic and foreign science, the status of alternative existence of research approaches to the study of innovation issues is being formalized - technical, economic and socio-humanitarian with a clear dominance of the first. This marked the beginning of the differentiation of research practices in the field of innovation, which resulted in a one-sided consideration of innovative phenomena, mainly from the standpoint of a technical and economic approach and a fragmented analysis of the social aspects of innovation activity. The main subject of research is the innovation process, including spontaneous diffusion and targeted transfer of innovations.

Third stage(from the 90s of the twentieth century to the present) is characterized inclusion of social aspects of innovation activity into the problem field of innovation and a change in the disposition of research approaches, expressed in the transition from alternativeness to their parallel implementation(A.S. Akhiezer, Yu.A. Karpova, V.Zh. Kelle, A.G. Krasnov, S.E. Kryuchkova, A.V. Markov, M.V. Myasnikovich, P.G. Nikitenko, V. A. P. Petrov, A. I. Prigozhin, G. N. Sokolova, D. I. Stepanenko, S. A. Shavel, Yu. V. Yakovets,). At this stage, researchers' attention is focused on the analysis of various types of innovative situations, the development of methods for early risk assessment, the formation of recommendations regarding public policy in the field of innovation.

Some researchers (N.I. Lapin) propose to identify a fourth modern stage in the development of innovation. The key aspect of study at the present stage is innovation networks that are as sensitive as possible to the rapid dynamics of the market, marketing-oriented, and capturing potential demand trends. The present period is characterized by: 1) methodological rethinking of the status of research approaches and paradigms of innovation along the path of their interaction and integration, which can be considered the beginning of a new stage in their development; 2) differentiation of innovation, which is expressed in the emergence social innovation(systems of knowledge about new methods of social development, about the peculiarities of the emergence and implementation of social innovations), and within its framework - the sociology of innovation, logistics of innovation, statistics of innovation; 3) humanitarization and humanization of innovation, which is expressed in the understanding innovations as social phenomena that require research from the perspective of social sciences and humanities.

Currently innovation process is proposed to be understood as an integral system of activities related to the preparation, creation and practical implementation of innovations of a technical, technological, organizational, managerial, economic, social and other nature, satisfying commercial and non-commercial public needs through translation of innovations into the system of cultural norms, patterns and values. This is the process of creating an innovation, disseminating it and using the resulting result.

Thus, starting from the level of individual production organizations and firms, innovative practice and its scientific research in the West spread to the level of national institutions.

Innovation originated at the beginning of the twentieth century, when the patterns of technical innovations were studied. The first innovative observation was made by N.D. Kondratiev in the 20s. He discovered the so-called “large cycles” (“long waves”), formed from each basic innovation and representing many secondary, improving innovations.”

To justify large cycles N.D. Kondratiev analyzed extensive statistical material on four leading capitalist countries (England, France, Germany, USA) for 140 years (from the end of the 18th century to the beginning of the 20th century) and identified the presence of 3 cyclical waves lasting 40 - 60 years.

In addition, N.D. Kondratiev identified empirical patterns that accompany fluctuations. In the development of the first wave, inventions in the textile industry and iron production, and inventions related to the use of water energy, played a decisive role.

The second wave, in his opinion, was due to construction railways, the development of maritime transport, mechanical production in all industries based on the steam engine.

The third wave was based on the use of electrical energy in the production, the development of heavy mechanical engineering, the electrical industry, and new discoveries in the field of chemistry. Radio communications, telegraphs, cars, airplanes came into life, and non-ferrous metals, aluminum, and plastics began to be used.

5. Reasons and factors influencing the speed of innovation diffusion.

Internationality of science. Development of the material and production base of the relevant branches of the state. The development of an experimental base, which presupposes not only the availability of equipment and laboratories, but also the appropriate attitude of the state, supports and creates an innovative climate in society on the basis of relevant legislation and other factors. Worker qualifications. Developed infrastructure.

5.1 The concept of innovation.

There is a distinction between the concept of innovation in a broad and narrow sense. IN in a broad sense, innovation activity understand the use of scientific and technical knowledge to transform various aspects of social life. In the narrow sense- this is an activity aimed at obtaining new scientific and technical knowledge and its implementation in the production sector with the aim of creating a competitive product.

Development of innovative activity in Russia.

The modern Russian school of innovation in unity with the theory of cycles and crises dates back to 1988. when in the monograph Yu.V. Yakovets “Acceleration of scientific and technological progress: theory and economic mechanism”, a classification of innovations (technical innovations) according to the level of novelty was proposed, the concept of the innovation cycle was introduced, its structure was determined, the connection with scientific, inventive and innovation cycles was revealed, the mechanism for the development of innovations was considered, and the differential scientific and technical income (later it was called technological quasi-rent) as the main incentive for the development of inventions.”

These provisions were developed in a number of works by teachers of the Department of Theory and Practice of State Regulation of Market Economy of the Russian Academy of Civil Art, where a strong innovative school has developed under the leadership of Doctor of Economics, Prof. Kushlina V.I.

The need for a transition to an innovative economy capable, on the one hand, of ensuring a sufficient variety of products produced in the country, and, on the other hand, reducing dependence on imports of strategically important goods and technologies has increased significantly due to the global financial crisis. The fall in world prices for energy resources, coupled with a simultaneously high share of imports for Russia, led to the actual devaluation of the national currency. Successful overcoming of crisis phenomena largely depends on what potential the Russian economy will have after the end of the crisis. This potential will determine the competitiveness of the Russian economy, which can be increased on the basis of technological modernization through domestic developments and the import of advanced innovative solutions.

HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF INNOVATION THEORY

© G.V. Grudinin1

Irkutsk State Technical University, 664074, Russia, Irkutsk, st. Lermontova, 83.

The relevance of the historical evolution of the theory of innovation is indicated. The main stages of innovative development are given. The relationship between the theory of innovative development and the formation of legal protection of intellectual property and its commercialization is revealed. Il. 3. Bibliography 19 titles

Key words: history of innovation; evolution of innovation; innovative development; intellectual property.

HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF INNOVATION THEORY G.V. Grudinin

Irkutsk State Technical University, 83 Lermontov St., Irkutsk, 664074, Russia.

The article indicates the relevance of the historical evolution of the theory of innovation. It gives the main stages of innovative development and reveals the correlation between the theory of innovative development and the formation of intellectual property legal protection and its commercialization. 3 figures. 19 sources.

Key words: history of innovation; evolution of innovation; innovative development; intellectual property.

IN last years processes have formed in the world aimed at the development of a new type of economy, where the basis of progress is the production of knowledge, its development and capitalization. Innovation activity is becoming the main direction of investment and concentration of both public and private sectors of the economy.

The concepts of innovation and innovative activity include different meaning Depending on the scope of application of these terms, disputes about what applies to them and what does not subside do not subside both in the scientific and legal fields. In a broad sense, innovation means something that generalizes innovations, often regardless of their fundamentality, depth and scope, as well as the area and scope of use. Let's look at some of the wording used in legislation:

Innovation is the introduction of a new or significantly improved product (product, service) or process, a new sales method or a new organizational method in business practice, workplace organization or in external relations.

Innovation is the introduction of a new or significantly improved product (good or service) or process, a new marketing method, or a new organizational method in business practice, workplace organization, or external relations.

In general, these formulations convey the modern meaning of the term innovation, but we will try to focus on the technological part of innovation in the context of historical development and changes. Throughout human history

Technological progress played a key role in the development of civilizations. From stone processing and the development of fire, agriculture, the invention of the wheel and writing to the creation of the World Wide Web and decoding the structure of DNA, discoveries and inventions allow man to rise to a new stage of evolution. Despite this, the attitude towards innovation, invention and discovery for many centuries did not receive the attention it deserved from contemporaries. We will not take into account primitive communities and the Ancient World, but starting from antiquity, when the first works on mathematics, mechanics, and astronomy appeared, the innovator was rather a rationalizer; the influence of science on the life of society was insignificant compared to religion, military craft, and agriculture. This also arises due to the opposition of science to technology, in contrast to Ancient China, where, in addition, a different religion allowed for many centuries to promote the development of science, invention and innovation. In many ways, religious dogmas became a brake on innovation in terms of scope (mainly the socio-political history of the development of society), instrument (actions of a religious and moral order) and ethical and moral principles throughout the Middle Ages. The Renaissance, the secular nature of its culture and anthropocentrism give impetus to a rethinking of reason, creativity and innovation. These qualities are encouraged, it becomes possible to evaluate the role of thought and talent in human activity, and its result has the highest value and criterion for assessing society. The chronologically subsequent reformation and the emergence of Protestantism with its fundamental

1Grigory Vladimirovich Grudinin, graduate student, phone: 89041119473, e-mail: [email protected] Grudinin Grigory, Postgraduate, tel.: 89041119473, e-mail: [email protected]

a different attitude towards hoarding, labor activity, creativity and entrepreneurship have taken a huge step towards the perception of innovation as the most important factor development. I would like to emphasize that the Protestant work ethic and its characteristic feature of conducting commerce not only for the sake of increasing personal consumption, but as a virtuous activity contributed to beneficial development in the coming era of capitalism.

European encyclopedists of the 18th century. in their works they highlighted the importance of the relationship between science and production throughout human history. The French educator Jean Condorcet noted in his work “Sketch of a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind” that “the progress of science ensures the progress of industry, which itself then accelerates scientific success; and this mutual influence, the action of which is constantly renewed, should be counted among the most active, most powerful reasons for the improvement of the human race.” In the key work of his time, “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations,” the Scottish economist Adam Smith also finds the following pattern: “With the progress of society, science, or speculation, becomes, like any other occupation, the main or sole profession and occupation of a special class of citizens. Like any other occupation, it, too, is divided into a large number of different specialties, each of which provides occupation to a special category or class of scientists; This division of activities in science, as in any other matter, increases skill and saves time. Each individual employee becomes more experienced and knowledgeable in his specialty; in general, more work is produced and scientific achievements increase significantly. The resulting significant increase in the production of all kinds of objects resulting from the division of labor leads, in a properly governed society, to that general well-being that extends to the lowest strata of the people.” Thus, he asserted the importance of science as an engine of progress, recognizing it as an element in the chain of division of labor, but leaving it the role, rather, of a function, a secondary factor ensuring the development of production. In our opinion, the importance of this statement should be noted due to the fact that in the 19th century. it was adhered to by most economists, including Karl Marx, who considered the development of productive forces to be the basis, and scientific and technological progress to be the superstructure, that is, a consequence and not the cause of the development of production. Based on the theoretical and methodological heritage of the classics, creatively comprehending it and strengthening it with the methods of materialist dialectics and the principle of historicism, Marx continues the study of technological dynamics. In particular, he puts forward and scientifically substantiates the position that the material basis of the medium-term economic cycle is the movement of fixed capital, with the renewal of which, and therefore with

With the intensification of innovation and investment processes, the way out of the next economic crisis begins. At the same time, Marx interprets innovation as a process that develops “in leaps and bounds” during crisis and depression and slows down in other phases of the cycle. Confirmation of this can be found in his model of the movement of total capital during simple and expanded reproduction, which assumes the constancy of the organic structure of capital.

At the same time, an expanded version of the consequences of mass innovations is presented, which are dialectically involved in the consideration of the laws and patterns of social development. It is with massive technological improvements that determine a number of interrelated changes in the productive forces that Marx connects subsequent adequate changes in organizational, economic and socio-economic relations of production and the transition to a higher formation stage.

Thus, innovation activity was one way or another considered as an important component of economic development, but its role was rather secondary and was not the subject of a separate and serious economic research. Moreover, historically, innovative activity has not been properly rewarded and protected by certain rights for many centuries. When considering innovative activity, one cannot help but touch upon such an important point as intellectual property for inventions. Let's try to analyze the historical development of this concept.

If we consider the period from antiquity to the late Middle Ages, then we are not even talking about protecting the results of mental work. We can only mention the very first case of copyright protection, described by the Greek historian Philark: according to the custom of the ancient province of Sibarius, the cook who invented a new dish received the sole right to prepare it for a year. But in fact this is the exception that confirms the rule. This can be partly explained by the fact that the vast majority of inventors were from the upper classes, and they did not need it. Changes occurred in late Middle Ages, when the first form of intellectual property protection arose - the feudal privilege for invention. Let us highlight its main characteristics:

Issued by the will and mercy of the ruler;

Extended to any type of activity (trade, production, invention, etc.);

No specific benefit was secured (exemption from tax, exclusive right to trade, issuance of a land plot, etc.);

Only novelty in a given territory was significant, and it did not matter whether it was the author of the invention or the person who borrowed it from him.

Since the 12th century. privileges spread throughout Europe. They received the greatest development in the Republic of Venice, where the first legal act was issued regulating the receipt of privileges and the use of an invention. However, with

Over time, this method of stimulating technical progress increasingly became a brake on the growth of productive forces. This was due to the following reasons:

1. Feudal monopolies, in fact, turned into a means of unscrupulous enrichment of the court camarilla, to whose farm they were given most important species production (salt, iron, sulfur, paper, glass, etc.). This became the reason for inflating prices for essential goods, the flourishing of bribery and speculation under the protection of “royal privileges.”

2. Privileges were abused by the workshops. All their activities were based on strict secrecy, and the number of artisans initiated into the secret “remained unchanged with the growing population,” which absolutely excluded both the growth of production and the progress of technology. In the eyes of the workshop, an innovator-inventor was a dangerous subject who could overnight undermine the complex system of an organization that had been built with great difficulty and brought large profits to its members. Therefore, the workshops did not support inventors and were often graveyards of ideas.

Thus, the old feudal practice of privileges gradually begins to die out and new forms of protection of inventions appear - patents.

First, let's look at the fundamental differences between a patent and a privilege:

A patent is issued on the basis of a law that is the same for everyone;

The patent applies to new, unused innovations;

Only inventions can be the subject of a patent.

Based on these differences, it is safe to say that a patent is aimed at developing technical progress on equal terms for all.

From a historical point of view, the primacy in the field of patent law belongs to the Venetian Republic. Its Senate (116 votes against 10 with 3 abstentions) adopted the “Parta Veneziana” on March 15, 1474, which can be interpreted as the world’s first Patent Law. According to this law, every citizen who made a machine that had not previously been used on the territory of the state received a privilege, according to which everyone else was prohibited from making similar machines for a certain period. It is worth noting that the Italian republics of the Middle Ages did not have royal power, and it was a different legal structure that allowed them to get ahead of their neighbors in this matter. For example, in England only in 1624 the “Statute of Monopolies” was adopted, later called the “Great Charter of the Rights of Inventors”. This law is still considered the basis of patent law in England. By comparison, in the Russian Empire in 1812, privileges began to be used, and in 1830, patent law regulations were introduced.

On March 20, 1883, at an international diplomatic conference in Paris, representatives of 11 countries signed a convention (later

which received the official name “Paris”, at which the Union for the Protection of Industrial Property was established. This marked the transition from a system of national (i.e., valid only within one country) patents to an international system, in which inventions patented in one country party to the Paris Convention could receive protection in all other member countries. The USSR joined the Paris Convention on July 1, 1965.

Thus, the history of the development of intellectual property rights is historically inextricably linked with the development of attitudes towards innovation activity as a separate concept. It is important to note that with a change in attention to technology and innovation as engines of progress and the final legalization of intellectual property rights and, accordingly, the generation of income from it, the economic category of innovation arises.

The first who seriously began to consider innovation as an economic category was Y.A. Schumpeter. In his 1911 work “The Theory of Economic Development” (German: Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung), the following main theses can be distinguished:

1. A clear separation of the concepts of economic development and economic growth.

Schumpeter himself pays great attention to this, trying to explain his vision on this issue as clearly as possible, which is reflected in large and varied adjustments and additions in subsequent editions. He understands development as “a special phenomenon, distinguishable in practice and in consciousness, which is not found among the phenomena inherent in the circulation or tendency towards equilibrium, but acts on them only as an external force,” capable of shifting the circulation of the national economy from a given center of gravity to another. Ordinary economic growth “does not give rise to new, qualitatively speaking, phenomena, but merely gives impetus to the processes of their adaptation, just as this happens when natural indicators change.”

2. Introduction of the concept of innovation (“implementation of new combinations”), ensuring economic development. It covers the following areas of activity:

making a new one, i.e. a good that is still unknown to consumers or the creation of a new quality of a particular good;

introduction of new things, i.e. given branch of industry is still practically unknown, a method (method) of production, which is based on a new scientific discovery and which may also consist in a new method commercial use the corresponding product;

development of a new sales market, i.e. a market in which the given branch of industry of that country has not yet been represented, regardless of whether this market existed before or not;

obtaining a new source of raw materials or semi-finished products, regardless of whether

whether this source existed before, or was considered inaccessible, or had yet to be created;

carrying out appropriate reorganization, for example, securing a monopoly position (through the creation of trusts) or undermining the monopoly position of another enterprise.

3. The key role of the entrepreneur as the main initiator of innovative transformations.

An entrepreneur, according to Schumpeter, is a subject of economic activity that is least susceptible to the negative influences of fluctuations and downturns compared to an economic entity that is firmly fixed in the coordinate system of a static economic formation. An entrepreneur has a greater motive for his activities, he tends to apply new combinations, use new knowledge faster, his activities are more creative under risk conditions.

Thus, this work gave rise to the theory of innovation and served as a starting point for its subsequent research.

The Soviet economist N.D. made a great contribution to the development of innovation. Kondratiev. In his main work, “Large Cycles of Conjuncture” (1925), he introduces the concept of the same name, also called “long waves.” Kondratiev, based on statistical data on the average level of commodity prices, interest on capital, nominal wages, foreign trade turnover, analysis of coal production and consumption, as well as cast iron and lead in Britain, France and the USA, considers a certain periodicity of 40-55 years in the rise and fall of the economy as a whole. The interdependence of these cycles with fluctuations in scientific and technological progress is given: “for about two decades before the start of the upward wave of the large cycle, there was a revival in the field of technical inventions. Before and at the very beginning of the upward wave, there is widespread application of these inventions in the field of industrial practice associated with the reorganization of industrial relations. The beginning of large cycles usually coincides with the expansion of the orbit of world economic relations." Kondratiev also links upward waves with social tensions that arise in the same time periods, considering this to be a consequence rather than a cause of fluctuations: “both wars and social upheavals are included in the rhythmic process of development of large cycles and turn out to be not the initial forces of this development, but a form of it manifestations". In 1939, Schumpeter's work "Business Cycles" was published, in which he positively assessed the work of Kondratiev and developed his theory, connecting long waves with short cycles of Juglar and Kitchen, thereby developing the ideas of the Soviet economist.

Based on analytical data, Kondratiev’s works made it possible to put forward innovation activity as the main factor in economic growth over a long period of time.

sociocultural and historical terms. Friend and like-minded person N.D. Kondratiev, Pitirim Sorokin laid the foundations of the theory of innovation in the sociocultural sphere, understanding it in a broad sense - not only as art and culture, social and political relations, but also as the dynamics of scientific discoveries and inventions, interstate and civil wars. Published in 1937-1941. in the four-volume “Social and Cultural Dynamics,” he examined, in particular, the trend in the dynamics of technical inventions over more than 5 thousand years of social history, as well as the largest innovations observed over the millennia in other spheres of society. Among the fundamental works of this period, noteworthy is the major monograph of the outstanding English scientist John Bernal, “Science in History,” published in London in 1954 and in the USSR in 1956. Although the researcher's focus is on the progress of scientific knowledge over all historical eras, he reveals the inextricable relationship of this progress with the development of technology, starting with the Paleolithic.

The next outstanding scientist who seriously studied the problems of the theory of innovative activity from an economic position can be considered the 1971 Nobel laureate, Russian-American economist Simon Kuznets. His scientific views were greatly influenced by the work of Schumpeter and Kondratieff, especially the aforementioned relationship between the development of technology and economics. The main theme of his scientific work was a comprehensive study of economic growth at the macro level. Based on his research, Kuznets pays special attention to the emergence of fateful, epoch-making innovations, their development and influence on changes not only in technical but also in social life: “we can today follow easily the sequence from the introduction of the passenger car as a mass means of transportation , to the growth of the suburbs, to the movement of the more affluent from the city centers, to the concentration of lower income recipients and unemployed immigrants in the slums of the inner city core, to the acute urban problems, financial and other, and to the trend toward metropolitan consolidation. But the nature and implications of this sequence were certainly not apparent in the 1920 "s, when passenger cars began their mass service function in the United States." Thus, the emergence of innovations and their development transforms society, while their influence may be invisible at the first stages of implementation, and even the innovators themselves may not assume their subsequent revolutionary changes with inventions. In addition, Kuznets emphasizes the importance of the development of science as a whole as a factor of economic growth: “Mass application of technological innovations, which constitutes much of the distinctive substance of modern economic growth, is closely connected with the further progress of science, in its turn the basis for additional advance in technology. While this topic is still to be studied in depth, it seems fairly clear that mass-uses of technical innovations (many based on recent scientific discoveries) provide a positive

feedback. Not only do they provide a larger economic surplus for basic and applied research with long time leads and heavy capital demands, but, more specifically, they allow the development of new efficient tools for scientific use and supply new data on the behavior of natural processes under the stress of modification in economic production".

Another Nobel laureate in economics, Friedrich August von Hayek, an outstanding representative of the Austrian school and the most famous of its members, along with J.A. Schumpeter adheres to the concept of economic liberalism in his works. From his point of view, the state apparatus should create minimal obstacles on the path of an innovative entrepreneur; it is necessary to develop institutions that encourage competition. According to him, the less rigid and centralized the public administration, the greater the chances for the development of spontaneous processes of scientific and technological development. As an example, “in Imperial China, the most remarkable of these countries, great advances toward civilization and sophisticated industrial technology occurred during periodic “eras of turmoil” when government control was temporarily relaxed.” In addition, he mentions the period of industrialization, which was most active in the city-kingdoms of Italy, Southern Germany, the Netherlands and England, where there was soft power. But still, Hayek went down in history as the developer of the theory of “scattered knowledge.” According to this theory, the knowledge of each individual cannot be completely formalized, explained and transferred to another; it has a share of irrational, intuitive nature. You cannot have the entire integrity of the system's information while being outside of it. Hayek puts forward the market as a multidimensional complex mechanism that unites the entire diversity of individual knowledge and ensures its unconscious self-organization. Hence the Austrian's hatred of monopoly in any of its manifestations. Because the human mind cannot appreciate the full complexity of the economy, this limitation will only interfere with the “invisible hand” of the market. Thus, Hayek’s works allow us to better understand the complexity of the knowledge economy and the economy of innovation.

The theory of innovation was brought to a fundamentally new level by the German scientist Gerhard Mensch with his 1975 work “Technological stalemate: innovation overcomes depression.” The publication, published after the oil crisis, deservedly attracted the attention of the scientific community. Mensch introduces a classification of innovations:

Basic (promote the emergence of new industries and new markets), in turn, are divided into technological and non-technological;

Improving (not revolutionary in nature, rather aimed at modernization);

Pseudo-innovations (they create only external changes, not constructive ones).

If previous researchers found a connection between economic fluctuations and the emergence of innovative

tions, then Mensch introduces the concept of cyclical appearance of basic innovations, approximately coinciding in duration with Kondratieff cycles, but ahead of it by 10-20 years, i.e. falling during the recession period. Thus, a depressed economy triggers the innovation process; the author assigned the term trigger effect of depression to this fact. According to Mensch, each long cycle has a shape described by a B-shaped logistic curve that describes the trajectory of the life cycle of a given technical method production. At the final stage of the previous technical basis, a new one arises. The author called this dependence “the model of metamorphosis.” In addition, Mensch introduces the concept of technological stalemate - stagnation of economic development that occurs when basic changes exhaust their potential. Industrial development is nothing more than a change in technological stalemates. Technological stalemate implies a consistent transition from basic innovations to improving ones, and then to pseudo-innovations. This is explained by the fact that, under generally favorable conditions, market participants will give preference to improving innovations as the least risky, and each subsequent improvement produces a weaker effect than the previous one, reaching its extreme stage to pseudo-innovation, which subsequently leads to a stalemate. A favorable situation arises for the emergence of new basic innovations.

The innovative concept of long waves includes the work of Alfred Kleinknecht and Jacob Van Dyck.

In his 1987 paper Innovation in Crisis and Recovery, Kleinknecht explores the existence of long-term fluctuations in basic innovations, which he calls “radical.” At the same time, he considers it important to subdivide them into innovations in products and innovations in technology. In contrast to Mensch, who derives the mechanism for the emergence of long cycles from the interaction between basic and improving innovations, including the lowest category of the latter - “pseudo-innovations”, he sees a similar relationship between innovations in products and technology. Analyzing the post-war industry in developed countries from the point of view of this approach, Kleinknecht comes to an interesting observation: the timing of the emergence of product innovations occurs during the period of depression, and technological innovations - at the stage of rising waves. This can be explained based on the practice that during a depression, the company’s strategy is to minimize risk, and therefore to refuse innovation. He considers the most likely increase in innovation in the phases of recovery and the beginning of recovery. Thus, he disagrees with Mensch on this.

J. Van Dyne's monograph “Long Waves in Economic Life” was published in 1979. A special role in this work is given to the formation of infrastructure. Van Duyne identifies it as one of three factors contributing to fluctuations, along with innovation and the life cycle: “innovation and life cycle

cycles act as a form of functioning of the long-wave mechanism on the release side; innovation-driven infrastructure investment is both an input and an output driver.” This work has generated some controversy, but the importance of introducing infrastructural changes in relation to fluctuations has allowed the development of a theory of innovation.

Since the 80s. XX century The next major shift in the theory of innovation is coming. In their works, authors from different countries introduce the concept of “national innovation system” (NIS). The foundation of this NIS concept was laid by such Western scientists as B. Lundvall (Bengt-Ake Lundvall), K. Freeman, R. Nelson and others.

The recognition of innovation as a key factor in economic development has been outlined above. But there has not yet been a more systematic view of the formation of innovations and processes conducive to this.

In 1985, an article by B.-A was published. Lundwall “Product Innovation and User-Producer Interaction”, in which the concept of an innovation system was introduced and its concept was presented. But in fact, the first generally recognized and fundamental work in this area is considered to be the work of K. Freeman in 1987, “Technology, Policy, and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan.” In this book, the author analyzed the post-war development of Japan, approaching it from the point of view of the national innovation system, catalyzing the process of technological development in the country.

The national innovation system is understood as a set of legislative, structural and functional components that ensure the development of innovation activity in the country.

The structural components of the NIS are organizations of the private and public sectors, which, in interaction with each other within the framework of legal and informal norms of behavior, provide and conduct innovative activities on a public scale.

strikes. These organizations operate in all areas related to the innovation process in research and development, education, production, sales and service of innovations, financing of this process and its legal support.

The NIS concept quickly spread not only in economic but also in political circles, and already in 1993 Finland officially used it in the work of the Ministry of Science and Technology Policy. Then, in 1997, the international union, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), released a review entitled “National Innovation Systems”, which published advisory information on recommendations for the formation and operation of NIS. Such rapid recognition of this concept once again proved the awareness of the importance of forming government programs in the field of innovation and its recognition as the most important element of development on a global scale.

In parallel with NIS research, in the 90s, the modern theory innovative processes denoting the transformation of scientific knowledge and ideas into the final product. The author of this theory is generally accepted to be Roy Rothwell. In his main work of 1994, “Towards the fifth-generation innovation process,” he examined in detail such a most important problem at the present stage as the formation of innovative products. He created a classification of models of innovation processes:

1. The “technology push” model (G1) is a linear process from scientific discovery, industrial development, engineering and production activities, marketing to the appearance of a new product or process on the market.

2. The “market pull” model (G2) is a linear process from market needs to subsequent development, production and release of the product.

3. Combined model (G3) - a linear process similar to G2, but with feedback(Fig. 1).

Rice. 1. Combined model

4. Model of integrated business processes (04) - shows the formed transition from the exclusively scientific component of innovation to closer interaction with other business processes, as well as a similar convergence between them (Fig. 2).

5. Model of integrated systems and networks (05) - even closer and deeper interaction already at the intersectoral level, providing greater flexibility and lower costs when creating innovations (Fig. 3).

“In theory” indicated above, the human mind is limited and it is impossible to learn everything and have all the necessary information. This is entirely consistent with open innovation.

The current stage of development of the theory of innovation focuses its attention on the two most important aspects indicated above:

1. Development of a mechanism for state support for an innovative institutional and infrastructural environment that minimally constrains the creative potential of innovators and is maximally favorable

Rice. 2. Model of integrated business processes

Science and technology infrastructure

Competitors

Key CP® suppliers Consumers

Literature, including patents

Strategic partners, marketing alliances, etc.

Mergers, investors, etc.

Rice. 3. Model of integrated systems and networks

promoting the development of competition and the formation of national breakthrough technologies.

2. Theoretical and applied research in the field of accelerating the time frame for the formation of an innovative development idea and its practical implementation.

Summarizing the development of innovation as an economic category over the centuries, we can say that a path has been passed from the misunderstanding and obscurity of the authors of many fateful inventions and the lack of attention on the part of economists and scientific researchers to innovation to the development of legal protection of intellectual property and recognition of innovative activity as a flagship economic development and the main catalyst for progress. At the present stage, innovations are the object of detailed study, starting from the development process to problems of interaction at different levels: economic, social and political.

The article was received on January 24, 2014. Bibliography

1. Federal Law “On Amendments to the Federal Law” 2. Azgaldov G.G., Karpova G.G. Valuation of the intellectual law “On science and state scientific and technical property and intangible assets.” M., politics"" N 254-FZ of July 21, 2011. 2006. P.56-64.

In addition to Rathwell, many scientists studied existing and developed new models of innovation processes, including Stephen Wheelwright, Kim Clark, and others. But their work was largely united by a similar view of the closedness of innovation. A fundamentally new view on this topic was proposed in 2003 by Henry Chesbrough in the book “Open Innovation. Creating profitable technologies". According to this theory, when developing innovations, companies should have maximum contact with partners and try to involve other scientists from around the world in order to expand the environment in which the right solution to the problem can appear. The artificial framework of the company does not work in the G5 model and in many cases there may not be enough existing staff to create innovation, therefore, that asset of competent specialists becomes untenable. According to Hayek’s theory of “diffused knowledge”

3. Bayaskalanova T.A. Changing theoretical approaches to the process of updating fixed production assets // Bulletin of the Irkutsk State Technical University. 2010. T.42, No. 2. P.30-35.

4. Bernal J. Science in the history of society. M., 1956. 743 p.

5. Zavgorodnyaya E.A. Theory of innovation: problems of development and categorical certainty [electronic resource] // Official website of the Institute of Economics and Forecasting of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine [site] 1^1.: http://www.ief.org.ua/IEF_rus/ET/Zavgorod406. pdf (date of access: 12/10/2012).

6. Condorcet J.A. Sketch of a historical picture of the progress of the human mind. M., 1936.

7. Kondratyev N.D. Large cycles of market conditions. M., 1925. P.15.

8. Menshikov S.M., Klimenko L.A. Long waves in economics. When society changes its skin. M., 1989. 276 p.

10. Smith A. Research on the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. M., 2007. P.74.

11. Sorokin P.A. Social and cultural dynamics. St. Petersburg, 2000. 1176 p.

12. Federal portal for scientific and innovative activities [website] URL: http://www.sci-innov.ru/law/base_terms/#21 (access date 12/12/2012).

13. Hayek F.A. Detrimental arrogance. Mistakes of socialism. M., 1992. 304 p.

14. Schumpeter J. Theory of economic development. M., 1982. P.157-184.

15. Chesbrough G. Open innovations. Creation of profitable technologies / trans. from English V.N. Egorova. M., 2007. 336 p.

16. Kuznets S. Nobel Prize Lecture, Stockholm, 1971.

17. Mensch G. Stalemate in Technology: Innovations Overcome the Depression. New York, 1979. 241 p.

18. Rothwell R. Towards the fifth-generation innovation process // International Marketing Review, Vol.11, No.1, Bradford, 1994. P.7-31.

19. Schumpeter J.A. Business Cycles: a Theoretical, Historical, and Statistical Analysis of the Capitalist Process, Oxford University Press, 1939. 384 p.

UDC 338.23 (517.3)

OBJECTIVE NEED FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF MONGOLIA

© Davaasuren Avirmed1

Baikal State University Economics and Law, 664003, Russia, Irkutsk, st. Lenina, 11.

Taking into account the trends in regional development of countries around the world, the need for regional development and solving the problems of eliminating sharp socio-economic differences between the regions of Mongolia is considered, measures taken by the government to create a legislative framework for the development of state policy on the regional development of the country are outlined; an analysis of the volumes of the gross regional product of Mongolia is given, the sectoral structure of the regions' GRP is considered with trends in the reduction of agricultural production in the Western, Khangai, Eastern and Ulaanbaatar regions and growth in volume industrial production, construction in all regions of the country. Based on the analysis, the possibility of specialization of the Western and Eastern regions in the production of agricultural products, and the Khangai, Central and Ulaanbaatar regions - in the production of industrial products, trade and the provision of various types of services was determined. The need to develop a regional policy for the country that can eliminate sharp differences in socio-economic development and create conditions for the sustainable functioning of the regional economy is substantiated. Table 1. Bibliography 7 titles.

Key words: Government of Mongolia; gross regional product (GRP); Khangai, Central, Western, Eastern and Ulaanbaatar regions; specialization; Agriculture; industry; services sector.

OBJECTIVE NECESSITY FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN MONGOLIA Davaasuren Avirmed

Baikal State University of Economics and Law, 11 Lenin St., Irkutsk, 664003, Russia.

Considering regional development tendencies in the global aspect, the article deals with the need for regional development and elimination of well-marked socio-economic differences between Mongolian regions. It describes the measures taken by the Government of Mongolia to create a legislative framework for the development of state policy on regional development of the country. Having analyzed the gross regional product (GRP) of Mongolia, it compares the sectorial structure of GRP in the regions featuring the reduction trend in agricultural output including Western, Khangai, Eastern and Ulaanbaatar regions with that of all regions of the country featuring the trend of growth of industrial production and construction. The analysis allowed to determine the possible specialization for Western and Eastern regions is agricultural production, while Khangai, Central and Ulaanbaatar regions are to specialize in industrial production, trade

1Davaasuren Avirmed, doctoral student, candidate of economic sciences, professor, leading researcher at the Institute of International Studies of the Academy of Sciences of Mongolia, e-mail: [email protected]

Davaasuren Avirmed, Doctoral Candidate, Candidate of Economics, Professor, Leading Researcher of the Institute of International Studies of Mongolian Academy of Sciences, e-mail: [email protected]