Is modernization another slogan or real state actions?

Introduction

Many people in our country think and write about innovation, modernization and technological progress. Some nostalgic about the loss of all Soviet developments in the scientific and industrial fields, others sincerely believe that there is still a bit of pressure left and, finally, a successful Russian company with a super product will shoot, still others think that it’s necessary to leave this country Where everything gets worse.

For several years now, the political elite has been constantly talking about modernization and innovative development. But for some reason, our country remains the "raw materials appendage" of the West. What are the true causes of non-transition to the rails of modernization? And does the state really see the future in modernization, or is it just another political slogan? To find the answers, it is necessary to understand whether modernization and innovation are really what we want, and we need to see how the state really organizes the system of innovative development.

Culture and heritage.

Throughout history, our country has been and, unfortunately, is still catching up on the issue of technological development. And in tsarist times and during the Soviet Union, we actively caught up with the West, but never surpassed it. It should be noted that all periods of technological leaps in one way or another were associated with the tough government intervention in this area. This suggests that the population itself has never formed a demand for new technologies. There have always been a significant number of talented scientists among Russians, and often their work remained unclaimed at all levels of society: at the enterprise level, institutional and state.
')


In this aspect, the results of research by the Argentine sociologist Mariano Grondona look very interesting. In his study, he determined the correlation between the type of society and the social and technological outcomes of this society. Some conclusions from his work:

• “Work in a culture that encourages innovation is a moral and social duty, the main form of self-expression and a source of satisfaction. In a culture that opposes progress, it is a burden, a necessary evil; real pleasure and satisfaction can only be obtained outside the workplace. ”
• “Dissent or disagreement is critical to progress, reform, and the search for truth in a culture that encourages innovation. In a culture opposed to progress, a dissident is a criminal who threatens stability and cohesion. ”
• “Finally, wealth. In a culture of innovation, this is a product of personal initiative and human efforts. In a culture that opposes progress, it is a natural or material resource, and life is a struggle to master it or redistribute it. ”

In other words, in cultures in which innovation and modernization are encouraged, people have a completely different attitude to work, alternative opinion and wealth. Unfortunately, I can state, based on my own life experience, that in Russia the opposite attitude to the listed factors prevails, than in societies with a progressive culture. That is why all technological breakthroughs occurred and, apparently, will occur only with the direct and serious participation of the state, which will meet the natural resistance of many people. But here another problem appears - people who are at the head of the state do not fly to us from the moon, they lived and developed in the same socio-cultural environment as the rest of the population, this leads to the fact that the state, as a managerial apparatus in general, also resists modernization and innovation. Consequently, the policy statements of the President and other politicians on the topic of modernization can be considered personal initiatives that do not reflect the true needs of the political and economic elite.

Modernization as a system

All countries that made technological and economic breakthroughs, one way or another, built an effective system of development and commercialization of scientific developments within the country. Recently, a number of prominent Russian scientists have proposed the basis for the innovation system of Russia.

The main ideas of the proposed system are: full integration with the global scientific community, up to the transfer of the project expertise function to foreign specialists, the project acceptance function is transferred from officials to prominent scientists, the formation of the Council for Science under the Government, support for small scientific research, change in the wage system - translation its on a multistage level with high pay. In my opinion, the proposed system as a whole is viable and efficient, and its adoption would be the first step in the absolutely right direction. Naturally, the main stumbling block will be the mechanisms of money distribution. Since this system intends to transfer the function of financing to scientists with quarterly reports before the Government, this will meet with strong resistance from interested persons from the bureaucracy.

In addition to building a system of internal creation of innovations, it is also necessary to create conditions for the entry of foreign specialists: engineers, researchers, designers, managers, etc. “About 150,000 foreign specialists are currently working in Russia. Both they and their employers consider immigration laws to be a significant obstacle to attracting foreigners. "Often, in the territorial departments of migration-related departments, high-class engineers are treated in the same way as masons and concrete workers from Central Asia <...> Because of the bureaucracy, many simply lose all desire to work in our country," says the first vice -Speaker of the Federation Council Alexander Torshin. ”Of course, the Government is unlikely to be able to quickly improve the standard of living, but at least it’s possible to simplify the process of attracting intellectual foreign capital in a short time.

On the influence of foreign experts, in particular managers, a study was conducted by American economists Ariel Burstein and Alex Monge. According to their calculations, the removal of barriers to attracting foreign managers leads to an increase in GDP of 12% - much more than the increase in GDP from the inflow of foreign investment.



The full creation and functioning of the innovation system within such a huge state as Russia, as noted above, requires tremendous work and attention from the state, business and the whole society. President Medvedev, starting with the Krasnoyarsk Economic Forum in 2008, constantly talks about the need to modernize the economy. In addition, in January 2010, Kudrin, Chubais, Gref, and other prominent figures traveled to MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) in the United States for a seminar on innovation. Returned inspired. This can be considered a sign that the state is gradually preparing for serious political steps towards modernization and technological development. Moreover, immediately after their return, strong statements began on the creation of their Silicon Valley in Russia.

Relatively recently (February 16, 2010) it was announced that “Prime Minister Vladimir Putin“ personally led ”the government commission on high technologies and innovations. In early February, a new department appeared in the government office - science, high technology and education, which will deal with the organizational support of the commission. He was headed on February 3 by the former Deputy Minister of Education Alexander Hlunov. The department will employ 23 people (almost a minimum by the standards of the White House), and part of the functions of the departments of culture and education and the defense industry. ” With such influential participation and control, it is quite possible to expect certain organizational changes from the state in the field of modernization. And just the other day it was announced that the Russian Silicon Valley will be located in the Moscow suburb of Skolkovo. Naturally, it is difficult to say now whether this is the first step on the part of the state towards the organization of modernization in the country, or whether it is creating a “visibility of work” in the context of a falling level of trust in the ruling authorities and preparations for the 2012 elections. After all, the theme of modernization and promotion of small business is in fact working with the liberal-minded part of the electorate.

Financing Innovation

After organizational issues, financial issues always arise. We always have funding, but for some reason there is little return.

Consider the real size of the costs of society to modernize and develop . “The state allocates 159 billion rubles this year to finance research and development for civil purposes. ($ 5.4 billion) is about 0.37% of GDP, or 0.94% of the consolidated budget. Russian entrepreneurs invest in innovation even more reluctant: private investment in research and development is about a quarter of the total. For comparison: in 2008, the Chinese government spent $ 67 billion on research and development - about 2% of GDP; local business invested $ 142.4 billion (68% of total investments) in development. ”

That is, at the moment we have such a picture that the financing of the development is insufficient, besides, the effectiveness of these investments is not clear and it is possible that it is also at a low level, which again emphasizes that at the moment modernization and technological development remain a beautiful dream.

The discrepancy between words and deeds

In practice, unfortunately, the actions of the Government often contradict the stated theses on modernization.



As an example, Russia’s recent signing of some economic agreements with China , the essence of which is that China will begin exporting natural resources from Siberia and the Far East with obligations to buy for many years to come, with all processing plants ( where added value is created) will be built in China. The construction of these enterprises will be credited by China and Russia in equity. In other words, China receives guarantees about the supply of necessary resources, builds plants with the participation of Russia, and this will increase employment and technological development of the region, Russia receives supply diversification and money. And this is all against the backdrop of statements about the need to develop the economy of the eastern regions of the country, including demographic problems. Plus, we are strengthening cooperation (in other words, we are educating the Chinese) in the fields of nuclear energy and cosmonautics. The Chinese have already learned how to make our own weapons, arms exports to China are decreasing each year, our last competitive industries remain - the atom and space, the achievements in which our Government for some reason also plans to “sell” to fast-growing China. All this, of course, raises doubts about the real desires of the country's leadership to modernize the economy.

Total

Unfortunately, the socio-cultural conditions in our country do not contribute to the emergence of the need for progress in society. Plus, at the moment, the state has done almost nothing but a discussion on the topic of modernization. This also applies to building an innovation system, and migration laws, and financing. Moreover, a number of actions, for example, cooperation with China, contradict the declared slogans about the modernization of the entire economy. But at the same time, it should be noted that signs of readiness to come to grips with technical re-equipment began to appear right now. The seriousness of intentions is emphasized by the involvement in the process of both the President and the Premier and the involvement of specialists from the West. Now our state faces a doubly difficult task: not only to create and maintain an innovative model of development, protecting it from corruption, but also to change the sociocultural attitudes of society through the mass media.

I invite everyone to the discussion on this topic in the comments.