Роль микропредприятий в инновационном развитии регионов РФ
The main competitive advantages of small businesses in many developed countries are innovations. Innovative activity of micro-enterprises in Russia is not an object of regular reporting or special statistical surveys. Therefore, the purpose of the study was to identify the relationship of micro-enterprises performance with innovational activity of enterprises in the regions. As information sources are used Rosstat statistical monitoring materials and materials from independent researches. Units of observation are 80 subregions of the Russian Federation; research method used is regression analysis. The article focuses on the possibility of an indirect estimation of innovative activity of micro-enterprises in regions, the search for the factors and forms of cooperation which promote the development of the potential of this group of businesses. The result showed that the highest correlation with the rate of innovation activity has the distribution of the intensity of micro-enterprises, enhanced by a mediator, an electronic index of the region's development.
Modern economy gives specific challenges to every business unit, but for micro enterprises impossibility to overcome them may lead to disappearance. Transition economies sufficiently increase the role of small and micro enterprises because of the ability to respond to the systemic shock and generate jobs and income at the time when the large firm sector was undergoing a rapid decline. Micro-enterprises create favorable conditions for Russian sub-regional economic growth: they develop competitive environment, enlarge consumer sector and find a better use of local raw materials. The current study combines typology task with territory potential use analysis and the main objective of the study is Russian sub-regional differences analysis in micro-enterprises population development. The purpose of this research is to examine the national business environment on a regional basis, as well as to identify factors that determine the economic viability of different regions.
Problems of official statistics connected with the measurement of innovative activity and ways to resolve them are considered. As the article demonstrates Global Entrepreneurship Monitor - GEM is one of these ways. The monitor is conducted in many countries of the world on a longitudinal basis during quite essential period of time and its methodology meets mostly the international recommendations on collection of statistical data on innovations (for example, Oslo Manual). Besides information collected in the framework of monitoring allow include in the borders of observation not only small and medium businesses, but also just arising businesses (in GEM terminology «new»).
Entrepreneurship and innovation are the main drivers of economic development today. The book explores the two in depth, at both the national and regional levels, using a variety of methodologies. The contributors discuss the subject from a policy perspective, with case studies from a host of countries including new member states of the EU as well as established EU member states and non-EU countries like Russia. Three parts of the book focus on innovation, entrepreneurial activity and regional development, and entrepreneurship and SME policy.
This study examines using a complex systems approach, the reciprocal relationships between innovation, internationalization, and organizational learning in small businesses. After analyzing 54 companies and purposefully selecting 12 particularly information‐rich cases, we find that these three key activities are reciprocally linked to each other, forming a complex circular system. The firms’ evolution also shows that faced with various change elements, the system evolved toward adopting one of up to four patterns of interaction, characterized by low and high incremental and radical innovation, local and global internationalization, and adaptive and generative learning. The findings are relevant to scholars, managers, and policymakers.
The paper examines the structure, governance, and balance sheets of state-controlled banks in Russia, which accounted for over 55 percent of the total assets in the country's banking system in early 2012. The author offers a credible estimate of the size of the country's state banking sector by including banks that are indirectly owned by public organizations. Contrary to some predictions based on the theoretical literature on economic transition, he explains the relatively high profitability and efficiency of Russian state-controlled banks by pointing to their competitive position in such functions as acquisition and disposal of assets on behalf of the government. Also suggested in the paper is a different way of looking at market concentration in Russia (by consolidating the market shares of core state-controlled banks), which produces a picture of a more concentrated market than officially reported. Lastly, one of the author's interesting conclusions is that China provides a better benchmark than the formerly centrally planned economies of Central and Eastern Europe by which to assess the viability of state ownership of banks in Russia and to evaluate the country's banking sector.
The paper examines the principles for the supervision of financial conglomerates proposed by BCBS in the consultative document published in December 2011. Moreover, the article proposes a number of suggestions worked out by the authors within the HSE research team.