The article deals with issues related to the research paradigm independent of technological and economic transformations. The author concludes that under modern conditions the process of technological innovation cannot be fully incorporated into economic activity. In this sense, he pays special attention to the issue of combining economic and non-economic regulation of technological innovations in the present and in the future.
Keywords: technological transformation, economic transformation, innovative companies, high-tech corporations, collateral effects, capital markets, new technological paradigm
The role of technological progress in the development of the economy and of society as a whole is becoming increasingly important. This also increases the importance of distinguishing between economic changes caused by technological changes, on the one hand, and other economic changes, mainly caused by institutional changes, on the other.
From the point of view of transformation theory, the actual application of technology is the result of mapping the technological space in the economic field. At the same time, the very vector of technological development inevitably develops under the influence of demand factors in the economic system. The study of the interaction of technological and economic transformational changes is definitely a problem little studied or, in any case, insufficiently studied, so we will pay special attention to it.
On the theoretical interpretation of technological transformation. Let us first dwell, at least briefly, on the very phenomenon of technological transformation, which is often ignored in the economics literature.
The main sign of the process of technological transformation is undoubtedly the change of technologies, achieved as a result of innovations – innovations. In most studies, technological innovations correctly distinguish between the ordinary ones, the so-called routine ones, and the fundamental ones. The first refers to the innovations that ensure the continuous improvement of technologies and the technical base of production and consumption. In contrast, fundamental innovations, typically discrete in nature, mediate a change in prevailing generations of equipment and technologies. Of course, in actual practice, hybrid innovations are also widespread, combining the properties of routine and fundamental innovations.
It is impossible to ignore the strong difference in the degree of significance of technological changes in various spheres of social activity, both economic and non-economic. Consequently, the structural technological changes, which are the result of the transformation of the genre in question, are extremely diverse.
At the level of social systems, the most obvious result of technological transformation is structural changes in terms of the scale of distribution of existing technological modes . Such quantitative structural changes inevitably lead to irreversible qualitative changes. Ultimately, there is a fundamental technological transformation change, which in its importance can be assessed as historical.
On the basis of specific studies, it seems reasonable to conclude that the fundamental technological modernization process is characterized by a multi-stage nature. Thus, referring to the historical experience of Russia and a number of European countries, at least three stages of the current industrial technological modernization can be pointed out . The first is pre-industrial modernization, in its content corresponding to classical modernization during the Industrial Revolution; the second is early industrial modernization in the 19th century; the third – late industrial modernization already at the beginning of the last century.
It is impossible to ignore the fact that the timing of industrial modernization-transformation differed significantly in different countries. This was most clearly expressed in the phenomenon of a long-term “lag” of fundamental technological revolutions in most countries, including Germany and Russia, relative to the leading countries (Great Britain and later the United States).
As specific historical studies show, the trajectories of technological transformations are in many respects similar to the trajectories of intra-systemic institutional transformations that took place in most countries. The diffusion of fundamental and revolutionary innovations, compressed in time, is followed by a long period of technological changes that are relatively moderate in intensity, although far from being uneven. And it continues until the beginning of a new stage of transformation of the type in question.
At the same time, there are many reasons to believe that the duration of the stages of modern technological transformation – post-industrialization is sharply reduced. In the context of the internationalization of scientific and technological progress, this applies to almost all countries in the world.
Modern researchers who do not represent traditional economic science rightly note the independence of fundamental technological changes from fundamental institutional changes. In favor of this is at least the historical example of the industrial revolution (revolution) in the eighteenth century, which occurred almost two centuries after the emergence of the first prototype of capitalism in the Netherlands at the end of the sixteenth century. Modern post-industrial revolutions in the early 1960s and 1980s.of the last century also took place virtually independently of the fundamental systemic institutional changes that took place, which include the collapse of the colonial system and the establishment of liberal capitalism, accompanied by the collapse of the socialist system in the Soviet bloc countries.
In general, all world historical experience testifies to the autonomy of fundamental technological changes from fundamental changes in economic institutions. For this reason, the well-known and still popular (in a non-professional field, of course) paradigm of technical and economic development, understood as an integrated process of technological and economic changes, does not seem like an adequate reality.
Incomparably more serious is the theoretical hypothesis about the endogenous nature of modern technological progress in relation to economic development (growth) prevailing among representatives of traditional economic science. His main argument is based directly on the well-known theory of human capital. Accordingly, in the modern era, human capital is the main factor in economic development, and knowledge is directly an economic resource. Starting from this premise, a fundamental conclusion is reached: technological changes, in which new knowledge is incorporated, can be considered as an internal, endogenous factor in modern economic transformation.And so technological progress acts as an immanent attribute of the state of economic systems.
However, there is an obvious logical flaw in the above theoretical conclusion. In fact, human capital (HC), understood as intelligence , health, knowledge , quality and productive work , and quality of life , is a general social category, not an economic one. Therefore, it is generally recognized that the value and quality of human capital is highly dependent on the prevailing mindset of the population of a particular country. In a historically short period of time, a significant return on investment can be obtained in education, science, health, but not in the mentality that has been formed over the centuries.At the same time, the entrenched mentality of the population can significantly reduce the effectiveness of investments in Cheka.
Another fundamental criticism regarding the interpretation (namely, the interpretation!) of this theory refers to the mixture of technological innovation processes and the diffusion of new knowledge, achieved through innovation-investment in human capital itself. . As a large number of empirical studies show, these processes differ significantly in the space-time dimension.
However, all of the above refers to a preliminary theoretical understanding of the problem of the interaction between technological progress and economic development. In terms of actual content, this complex problem can obviously be solved on the basis of specific studies on the impact of technological innovations on the results of economic development, on the one hand, and the inverse impact of economic changes on technological development, on the other. the other. .
The impact of technological development on economic transformation. The problem of the impact of technological innovations on economic development is the subject of research, both at the micro, macro and meso levels.
Let’s start with micro-research, the vast majority of which is purely applied research. Based on their results, there is no doubt about the diversity of the effects of technological innovation in the modern market economy.
At least three fundamentally different types of technological innovation must be taken into account. First, innovations that provide relative cost savings, especially in the case of increasing returns. Second, innovations aimed at improving the consumer properties of goods, subject to a relatively small variation in demand for them; thirdly, the so-called “green” innovations associated with improving the state of the environment. Of fundamental importance is the difference between the institutional arrangements that operate in the small business sector and in the large-scale branded R&D sector .
Due to the above, it is legitimate to affirm the absence of a single model of innovative project . In fact, there are several innovative projects in terms of the nature of the investment costs.
With all our heart, it’s hard to underestimate the role of corporations in the innovation process. It is generally recognized that modern corporations themselves determine the directions for creating technological delays according to the profile of their activities . At the same time, the deliberate transformation of informal knowledge into formal knowledge by companies is of vital importance.
Small innovative companies also play a very important role in driving technological progress. Thus, extensive specific studies on third world countries unambiguously indicate a reduction in the existing deep technological gap of the advanced countries of a number of developing countries due to the activities of small innovative companies that are rapidly emerging in them .
In the economic sphere, the market effect of innovations by recipient companies is mainly taken into account. Following the forceful arguments of Douglas North, it is legitimate to judge technologies by their indirect impact on the efficiency of the companies-recipients of these technologies , that is, by their indirect impact on the production and relative costs of economic agents.
It can be considered generally accepted that the technological overflow in a certain market segment of the economic field or, in other words, the diffusion of innovations is in many cases associated with a significant external collateral effect . It consists, so to speak, in the incidental creation of benefits in the form of new scientific and technical knowledge for the whole society, that is, in essence, public goods.
Of particular importance, it is worth adding to the above, are the innovative externalities of the cluster. The companies operating within the cluster, in fact, use the technological advances and the new scientific knowledge obtained by the “neighboring” innovative companies. At the level of a regional cluster, a secondary effect of innovation is manifested through the increase in the good of the club for all participating companies.
It is impossible not to focus on the details of the secondary effect of the innovation. It is fundamentally different from the usual production side effect, when the production of one economic agent depends on the production of another agent. The main result of the innovative side effect is a qualitative change, expressed in a discrete change in the return of the factors of production, in particular, the intermediate product .
The existence of negative secondary effects of innovation must also be taken into account. An eloquent example on this subject is the release of pharmaceutical products that threaten health. Also an example of a significant negative side effect on economic activity is intellectual piracy, which is generally considered in the example of China. It is legitimate to interpret it as one of the types of opportunistic behavior.
However, speaking about the weight of side effects, the question arises quite logically. Why is the internalization of innovative side effects not achieved as a result of the practice of the patent contract?
Based on the Coase theorem, if individuals can reach a mutually acceptable agreement without incurring additional costs for the allocation of resources, they can solve the problem of externalities. But, as many specific market collisions show, the innovative effect in most cases goes beyond the implementation contract. At the same time, there is an information asymmetry, in a significant number of cases due to the opportunistic behavior of one of the contract participants.
In general, it seems reasonable to conclude that the system of licenses and patents is limited by the market, which emerged, it is worth remembering, at the end of the era of free capitalism (despite the relativity of this concept). As a large number of examples show, many well-known companies do not trust patent protection and prefer to keep their technological inventions completely secret.
Internationally, the market efficiency of the patent system is also limited. As is known, control over the enforcement of patent and intellectual property rights, which is under the jurisdiction of the WTO, is ephemeral in many cases due to the objective lack of interest of national governments in sanctioning “their” innovators. for an initiative that benefits the national economy.
It can be argued with great certainty that the strong uncertainty and incompleteness of innovative markets contribute to the emergence of various non-market side effects. They manifest themselves in the process of competition in innovative markets due to the emergence of new entrants here . Modern researchers rightly focus on the special significance of such effects, since there is no internalization of financial losses as a result of the disappearance of the so-called technological rent (quasi-rent).
Likewise, in the studies under consideration, the phenomenon of the intertemporal secondary effect stands out, which is expressed in the receipt of free benefits in the future by new innovative companies that have come to the market from the results of technological developments in the current period . At the same time, such a negative side effect manifests itself in over-investment, over-advertising and patenting by existing innovative companies to prevent new competitors from entering the market.
In developing what has been said, it is appropriate to focus on the following critically important point. Microeconomic studies deal exclusively with the spillover effects of innovation associated with the introduction and replication of new technologies in certain market segments. The technological, obviously non-economic, component of human capital is essentially not taken into account.
In fact, not all entities that ensure the promotion of technological progress are market adventurers. Starting from the understanding of technological transformation as a holistic process, the special external effect of the impact on economic activity induced by creative scientific and technological activity or, in other words, the initial research on the creation of new technologies and new technical and design solutions. The probability of a failed result of these studies is objectively significant, regardless of the actions of market players, including risk companies.In particular, despite the extreme specialization and experimental nature of modern scientific research, the importance of an enormous role in the achievement of success of especially gifted individuals, the geniuses, remains.
The aforementioned non-economic effect of technological research itself manifests itself directly in relation to entrepreneurs in the risk market. The high uncertainty and the risk that research on the creation of new technologies will not be completed successfully obviously limits the initiative for its development and diffusion by the venture business, which ultimately focuses on maximizing market results. And this, in turn, leads to a decrease in the positive effect resulting from the increase in new knowledge and technologies on economic activity.
As follows from the above arguments, a particularly important field of activity is the autonomous forecasting of technological progress in its specific areas, which precedes actual economic projections. Originating in Japan, the practice of long-range technology forecasting has become widespread in many countries, including Russia .
In turn, in this field, as is known, expert forecasting based on the Foresight methodology has received the widest application. It is focused on the search for emerging opportunities and risks, determined precisely by scientific and technological development, both global and national.
The application of the Foresight expert method, as evidenced by foreign and domestic experience, makes it possible to see new non-traditional solutions, anticipate and assess new risks, predict new development trajectories, even those that do not exist today at all. At the same time, the positioning of technological forecasting (scientific and technical) is achieved within the framework of the general forecast of social development as one of the main components.
Considering the problem of the impact of technological transformational changes on economic dynamics, numerous specific studies in line with modern macroeconomic theory cannot be ignored. Most of them, in turn, are based on Robert Solow’s famous econometric model . It is also impossible not to take into account the numerous regional studies on the impact of technological progress on the development of individual sectors of the national economy, in particular, devoted to the problems of military technologies.
As can be deduced from the results of the econometric studies carried out, based on company, industry and macro statistics, in the period 1970-1980. in countries with developed market economies, about 80% of the increase in productivity is explained by the effect of the technological factor, after which this share is slightly reduced. True, according to experts, to a large extent, the increase in productivity was due to innovations in ordinary business, mainly related to the improvement of management organization.
Most of the aforementioned studies start from the assumption of the endogeneity of technological progress based on the reproduction of human capital in economic development. At the same time, according to recognized theoretical results, endogenous technological progress is accompanied by important external collateral effects and is manifested through an increase (loss) of social utility that is not taken into account in relation to market cost parameters . Furthermore, increasing marginal returns to human capital are thought to manifest themselves precisely through positive side effects. And some of the positive side effects generated by a company’s own investment in research directly affect the scale of its operations.
However, the “flexible” endogeneity hypothesis of technological progress is not confirmed empirically. According to Paul Romer himself, author of the most famous econometric model of endogenous economic growth, in fact, the impact of technological innovations on economic growth manifests itself as an implicit function of time . In this regard, it is more than timely to mention the critical conclusion of Robert Solow regarding the underestimation in the works of the theorists of endogenous economic growth of the phenomenon of uncertainty and the risk of the technological process .
What conclusions can be drawn based on the considered results of the micro and macro/meso studies?
First, the technological transformation is far from being isomorphic with the economic transformation. There is no complete incorporation of the technological innovation process into economic activity and, moreover, into market activity.
Second, within established markets and sectors of the economy, there is limited endogenous technological progress. In reality, both endogenous and exogenous economic growth continues to occur. The non-market spillovers induced by research innovation activity reflect the objective autonomy of the technological field of activity in relation to specific economic systems.
Thirdly, to a great extent, technological progress acts as a free public good, moreover, of global use. The classic theory of value, based on the postulate of limited economic resources, is not applicable to evaluating the performance of innovators.
In favor of what has been said, it should be added, it is also demonstrated by the practice of awarding modest “triple” Nobel prizes to experimental research in recent decades, despite the possibly enormous effect of these studies. This practice, in our view, stems from recognition of the relative routine of research innovations carried out in the course of computerized experimental research with the help of powerful information and other user technologies.
From the conclusions drawn, it follows that technological transformation, which has a colossal non-commercial impact on the development of the economic system, requires social regulation. First of all, we are talking about a flexible policy to regulate innovative markets, taking into account their important secondary effects. This type of policy is designed to be multidirectional. On the one hand, it implies stimulating entry into innovative markets by exempting initial investments from taxes; on the other hand, the rejection of tax incentives in case of excessive entry into the market, leading to a significant decrease in the effectiveness of innovation.
The state political practice is also called from the gravity of the phenomenon of a non-economic collateral effect induced by creative scientific and inventive activity. Judging by world experience, the most serious technological startup projects, associated with a high risk of failure, are still largely carried out with state support. At the same time, the need for the implementation of technology policy proper, autonomous from economic policy, continues to be very significant. Its traditional theme, as you know, is the regulation of technical norms and standards, as well as the protection of the technologies themselves, in particular, the protection of databases, using a variety of tools, including user education.
Also, in modern conditions, the need to stimulate creative, scientific, inventive and design activities outside the market is increasing extremely significantly. In particular, the morale boosting of innovators through public recognition of their achievements in a variety of ways.
Impact of transformational economic changes on technological development. Extensive empirical experience shows that favorable economic changes are definitely correlated with positive technological transformational changes. In all the economically developed countries of the world, the scientific and technical potential exceeds tens of times the corresponding potential of the poor countries.
At the same time, the impact of market changes on technological development can also be negative. Thus, the phenomenon of the so-called institutional trap (lock-in) in relation to innovations is widely discussed in the scientific literature. A textbook example of the effect of blocking effective technological advances concerns the still ubiquitous use of the QWERTY keyboard, despite the existence of much more efficient and moreover proprietary keyboards . However, long-term discussions on this problem have not led to a certain consensus among researchers.It is generally only recognized that the long-term choice of inefficient technological innovations is due to the objective incompleteness of existing market institutions.
The negative impact on the technological transformation of imperfections in the capital market is even more significant. It is appropriate to refer to the well-known study by Glenn Hubbard , according to which the modern capital market is characterized by the phenomena of worst selection (adverse selection), moral hazard, together with information asymmetry.
Financial constraints caused by capital market imperfections are especially pronounced in relation to the high-tech sector, holding back overall economic progress. The researchers identify several reasons for the special importance of this phenomenon. First, the lenders (banks) are at high risk due to the uncertainty of the hi-tech companies’ own loan repayments. Second, lenders tend to ration loans because of the “natural” opportunistic desire, confirmed by many empirical studies, of borrowers to use loans for other purposes.That is, to finance high-risk projects rather than relatively low-risk projects stipulated by agreements with creditors. Third, most of the investment in high technology,
As we have already pointed out, large high-tech companies (with assets greater than 50 billion dollars) play a very important role in the world economy. Everyone knows examples of successful business activities of high-tech companies: Apple, Samsung, Microsoft, Google, Sony, Intel, Facebook, Lenova, etc. At the same time, the number of large high-tech transnational companies is very small. And naturally the question arises: what is the reason for such exclusivity?
The fundamental difference between high-tech corporations and large conventional financial, insurance, commercial, and industrial corporations is the reliance on equity capital. In this way, they avoid dependence on large creditors and investors that are obviously external and possibly hostile. So today everyone is talking about the example of the Apple Corporation, which has become the world leader in terms of capitalization.
In turn, the orientation towards self-financing in the modern globalized economy implies the accumulation of huge financial resources and is difficult to achieve. It is possible, as the history of modern business shows, only in the case of tremendous initial success during the period of establishment on the market, which explains the exclusivity of KVK.
It is also impossible not to pay attention to the special “alliance” of KVK with banks and other large financial institutions. They contribute to the profitable placement of KVK securities on the stock market, in particular, on the specialized stock exchange NASDAC in the USA.
At the same time, medium-sized high-tech companies, as a rule, lack financial resources. As a consequence, there is a limitation of the managers’ initiative to carry out innovative projects and, even more, efficient investment. And this means the need for direct or hidden state support.
To an even greater extent, innovative small businesses experience limited financial resources. The main way to overcome this difficulty is rightly considered to be venture investment in the equity capital of innovative companies, especially those that have recently appeared on the market. This form of investment-financing obviously implies constant monitoring of the innovation activity by the owners of the venture capital. And it is quite clear that in the case of the transformation of small innovative companies into medium-sized companies, especially large ones, the possibility of their control by venture capitalists is significantly reduced.At the same time, in the case of a transition to the usual mode of public corporatization of capital, the problem of lack of financial resources will definitely arise.
However, of course, the problem under consideration is not limited to the limited supply of financial resources in the technological sphere due to the general institutional incompleteness of the capital market. From the position of the transformation theory, what is most significant is the deep structural imperfection of the capital market that has developed in the current capitalist world.
Under modern conditions, as has been empirically proven for a long time, the main contribution to economic progress is made by innovative and high-tech sectors; just go back to the textbook studies of Edward Denison and Joseph Kendrick. However, within the framework of the modern capitalist economy, the main gain in income, as simple statistical calculations show, is received by the financial sector, a number of other transaction sectors (especially trade and the housing services sector) and the raw materials. sector.
The scale of financial speculation is enormous, as a result of which astronomical profits are sometimes made from fluctuations in the stock prices of large corporations. Indirectly, this is evidenced at least by the volume of the turnover of money for redemption of corporate stocks and bonds, which is several times larger than the volume of newly issued securities for direct investment.
There is also a large-scale flow of excess finance capital, which has increased considerably as a result of huge speculative trading during the global crisis, into the commodity futures markets (where almost all trading in oil and other commodities currently takes place). strategic resources) . In full accordance with the principle of market equilibrium, the increase in commodity prices initiated in this way neutralizes the potential increase in money demand for real assets, even in the innovation and high-tech sectors.
Essentially, the high-tech sector pays a tacit tribute to the financial sector. As a result, there is a limitation of resources to finance technological development, especially for the implementation of advanced non-commercial projects at present. This, in turn, does not imply the diffusion of progressive technologies that replace today’s profitable technologies. In particular, the extremely slow diffusion of electric vehicles and technologies to use the resources of the world’s oceans.
However, all of the above referred to the capital market of developed Western countries. In other countries of the world, the limiting influence of economic development on technological transformation is also evident, but with significant originality.
Thus, the Russian economy is clearly dominated by commodity corporations and banks, which are under the complete, at least informal, control of the state. Only a few domestic high-tech companies feature prominently in the economic Olympus, as evidenced by Expert magazine’s ranking of Russia’s 400 largest companies. We are talking about AFK Sistema, Vimpelcom (Bee-line) and Megafon. At the same time, the phenomenon of self-financing of high-tech companies takes place in the conditions of the Russian economy.Noteworthy, therefore, is the growth in the number of large information technology companies that have achieved success in large part because they are not publicly held corporations and thus maintain financial independence from larger national corporations. large and their partners who have captured most of the Russian markets.
It is also legitimate to state that the limited sources of financing for the hi-tech and innovation sectors in Russia are not explained by the institutional imperfections of the existing capital market (although this factor is significant), but by the overall extremely long technological regression. which occurred in the early 1990s during a systemic crisis. There is still a rejection of private companies, including commercial banks, to invest (credit) in innovative projects and programs. It occurs mainly at the expense of the state, which is so visibly observed in the example of Skolkovo and other technology parks.
Therefore, the following conclusion can be drawn: the dominance of financial institutions and closely related commodity corporations in the global and national economic scenarios implies a limitation of capital flows to the innovation sector and the high technology. This phenomenon reflects a profound structural contradiction between the institutions of the high-tech and venture capital sectors and the institutions of the capital market, the global financial market. It must be resolved in the short term, or at least in the medium term.
The next technological transformation and its economic and non-economic effects. Without exaggeration, modern society lives in anticipation of great technological changes. Thus, in the very near future (2020-2030), homologation is approaching as the new predominant technological order, which will predetermine the formation of new industries and industries . Along with the rapid improvement of information technologies, the wider application of new nanotechnologies and biotechnologies is expected in the near future. And, in particular, technologies based on stem cells; it is the use of these technologies in the Google Corporation-funded artificial intelligence project that can truly change lives.
Furthermore, along with the expected fundamental technological changes, the unfolding of a global green transformation is expected, which is expressed in the transition of the world economy to low carbon and energy efficient “rails” . And, in turn, such rational consumption of resources can be achieved mainly on the basis of fundamentally new technologies for the use of renewable resources.
In the context of the subject under consideration, the following point cannot be ignored. A purely utilitarian and simplistic understanding of future technological transformation prevails in the popular literature as a means of reorganizing almost all aspects of the business. In fact, it proclaims the possibility of fully incorporating the process of technological innovation in advanced business with the help of the latest information technologies.
Of course, it is difficult to discuss the enormous opportunities that information technologies provide for the implementation of innovative projects with the best results for consumers-clients. However, the integrity of the information available to consumer companies refers only to the technologies developed and ready to implement, but not to the unrealized alternative technologies, information about which their developers are interested in keeping secret. Furthermore, and no less important, the comprehensive improvement of information control methods does not eliminate the well-known phenomenon of information asymmetry between innovators and consumers of their developments.The deliberate distortion of information by innovating companies and the original developers of new technologies themselves is a natural attribute of the multilateral market game,
At the macro level – the level of national economies, multi-regional economies and the global economy – the degree of imperfection of information about the actual applied and implemented technologies is definitely increasing. And there will be no unequivocal structural correspondence between the demand for technologies in macro systems and the actual supply of technologies: the results of innovative activity in these systems will not be achieved. Therefore, for the foreseeable future, technological transformation will largely occur independently of economic transformation and will not be fully incorporated into economic transformation as its internal component.
In developing the above, it makes sense to focus on the expected significant increase in innovative technological activity in the non-commercial social sphere in the future. The so-called social technologies, based on the latest scientific and technological achievements, will be used more and more. At the same time, the relative autonomy of technological transformational changes of this kind from transformational processes in the social sphere itself seems quite obvious. The latter are determined to a certain extent by the internal laws of scientific and technological development and cannot be programmed based solely on the social “order”.
Undoubtedly and in the future, the most difficult problem of mastering technological advances involves a solution at the system level, that is, suitably “tuning” the existing institutional mechanisms within economic systems. And, first of all, in a specific space-time dimension, it is necessary to answer the question of which main institutions and economic subjects will guarantee the implementation of the next technological advance.
The leading role in disseminating technological progress, according to most forecasts, will continue to be played by the largest high-tech corporations. Of course, this presupposes the preservation of the existing institutions of the corporate market economy, which make it possible to receive high profits from the sale of products based on new technologies.
In turn, no one questions the leading role in the practical development of technologies that initiate the creation of new technological methods, new equipment and new products, innovative small and medium-sized enterprises. And the institutional risk mechanism must guarantee the interest of non-corporate innovators in the results of their market activities.
Ultimately, ordinary corporations will be tasked with replicating technological advances in specific markets. Successful financial and other results of such activities will testify to the adequacy of future market mechanisms to the needs of economic development.
However, there are reasons to believe that the innovative potential of large corporations and non-corporate private companies will remain relatively limited in the future. According to several experts, the risk that, on the basis of traditional economic criteria, the execution of pioneering innovative projects, even in the key areas of technological progress (in particular, the creation of new biotechnologies), will not be successful, will continue to be significant and may even increase. Within the imperfectly competitive market environment inherent in the modern economy, negative side effects (in terms of impact on economic performance) will continue to manifest.
As a result, the role of the state, whose interests are represented by various organizations, can only increase. And in the first place, this is likely to manifest itself in the implementation of an active policy to stimulate economic innovation. It involves various forms of social regulation: government programs, public-private partnerships, the provision of tax incentives, concessional loans to innovative companies at the stage of their seed capital formation.
A particular topic, which is already being debated internationally, concerns the application of green technologies in real market conditions. There will definitely be the problem of creating a market infrastructure within which the sale of goods and services based on green technologies is profitable. In particular, this refers to the use of electric transport in existing urban agglomerations.
Nor can the well-known problem of the technology gap be ignored. In the next decade, according to the best-known forecasts, the technological gap between advanced countries and countries where high-tech giants do not operate may widen even more. For this reason, there will be a growing need for supranational regulation of the TSI sector to evenly distribute technological advances, mainly induced by high-tech giants, throughout the world.
The non-economic dimension of technology policy discussed above will definitely remain very important as well. And it is likely to intensify at the supranational level. One of the main reasons is the growing threat of man-made disasters, even on a planetary scale. The problem of overcoming technological risks of general social importance will apparently become the most important problem in the social sciences.
It is not wise to forget about military technologies. Based on a realistic understanding of geopolitical changes, most experts confidently predict a continued buildup of armaments over the next 10 to 15 years. If only for this reason, the role of major nation states in implementing technology policy will remain significant.
Finally, it is impossible not to touch, at least briefly, on the very important issue of the indirect consequences of the global technological transformation in the first quarter of our century. In our opinion, the most significant of these is the probable increase in the contradiction between high-tech businesses and large financial capitals, mainly banks, as a result of an objective struggle for market power and, at the same time, for the influence in the political space. The resolution of this contradiction will imply very significant disturbances in the structure of status at the national and supranational levels.Consequently, the need for public regulation of complex transformation processes will increase far beyond the limits of the spheres of technological and economic activity.
