No abstract

If until the 90s. innovation policy was focused solely on the activities of enterprises in the real sector of the economy, and economic and social problems were not considered in their interconnection and interdependence, then with the advent of the 21st century the situation has changed dramatically. The increasing contribution of health care, education, social security to the gross domestic product, job creation has made it possible to consider them as a sphere of origin and application of innovations. It has been established that in conditions of a high load on the budget system of the country, social innovations can play a significant role in the development of society, influencing the saving of government spending on the social sphere while improving the quality of life of citizens. The purpose of the article was to identify the features of supporting innovative activities in the social sphere at the state level in the Russian Federation and the European Union. The study revealed the content of the activities of key organizations that are focused on the development of social innovations: in the Russian Federation – the Agency for Strategic Initiatives, the Social Projects Support Fund, innovation centers in the social sphere in the regions of the country, in the European Union – the Commission on Social Innovations and the Innovation Union . The key features of the activities of these organizations are identified in terms of support and replication of social innovation. Based on the study, it was found that in Russia, the ecosystem for supporting innovation in the social sphere is less stable and structured, but is dynamically developing in terms of its individual components. In the European Union, the system for supporting social innovation is much more established, many of its elements are highly developed (in particular, evaluating the effectiveness of social innovation).

Objective: to assess the level of inclusion of the innovation space characteristics into the legislative acts on innovation activity in the macroregions of Siberia.Methods: a spatial approach, which allowed considering the innovative development of a macroregion through the characteristics of length, connectivity, density, and uniformity; a synchronous method, which made it possible to compare legislative documents in the macroregions of Siberia by the representation of spatial characteristics in them; a qualitative content analysis, used to identify words and phrases characterizing the spatial development of innovations in the texts of legislative documents on innovation activity.Results: the paper revealed the increased attention of foreign and Russian scientists to the search for ways of improving the effectiveness of legislative regulation of innovation activity. It was determined that the regional legislative acts of the macroregions of Siberia (Ural-Siberian and South-Siberian macroregions) regulating innovation policy do not actually reflect the characteristics of the innovation space (such characteristics as interaction, cooperation, communication, and partnership are highlighted). In less than half of the analyzed documents, there are no characteristics of spatial development of innovations, in a third – interterritorial cooperation is mentioned as a characteristic of spatial development. In the studied documents, the predominant form of cooperation and interaction is the formation of clusters and the coordinated development of science, innovation, production, and education.Scientific novelty: for the first time, the article evaluates the representation of spatial characteristics of innovation development in the relevant legislative acts of the macroregions of Russia. It is shown that the territories of macroregions should have denser, more intensive links in the development of innovations in order to meet their intended purpose. The author suggests improving the legislative regulation of innovation activity by including the requirement for regions to develop intersectoral and interterritorial interaction.Practical significance: the analysis of legislative acts presented in the article in the field of innovation support and innovation development from the viewpoint of the spatial approach can be useful for correcting the existing and developing the new approaches to spatial and innovative development of macroregions of Russia. The research results are intended for public authorities involved in the formation of the innovation policy of the regions.

No abstract

Introduction: the successful activity of small innovative enterprises is one of the indicators of a sustainable economy. However, only an insignificant part of those meets the high standards bringing them to innovation ratings. Objectives: to form a profile of the most successful small enterprises engaged in innovative activities, and to determine the parameters of its change for 2016–2020. Methods: general scientific methods of cognition: dialectical, decomposition, synthesis, generalization, analogy, as well as economic analysis. Results: the typology proposed by the authors has been used as the basis for forming a profile of the most successful small innovative enterprises. The typology is based on the frequency of entry in the “TechUspech” rating. The typology features six groups of enterprises: “stable leaders”, “leading”, “aspiring”, “unstable”, “beginners”, “random”. The type of economic activity, regional affiliation, number of employees, revenue growth rate, net profit, goals and types of investment strategy of small innovative enterprises included in the “TechUspech” rating are analyzed. Conclusions: the following profile characteristics of a successful small innovative enterprise presented in the “TechUspech” rating has been received: this is an enterprise in the field of information and communication technologies located in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Novosibirsk or Tomsk regions; rated in “beginners” or “aspiring” groups; with net profit of 100–150 million rubles but showing its fall by 2020; focused on achieving financial stability and reducing investment risks. The biggest changes over the period have been identifies in such parameters as industry affiliation (in 2016, these were enterprises in the “materials and chemistry” and “engineering industries”), regional affiliation (Moscow region, the Republic of Tatarstan, Perm region), net profit (previously positive dynamics was obvious).