English / ქართული / русский /

Journal number 1 ∘ Vakhtang Burduli


Тhis article gives a brief description of the main NIS models used in the world, investigated the nature of the development of NIS in France, South Korea and Finland, and in the last paragraph of this chapter, the relationship of the overall structural, structural industry (industrial), innovation and structural regional policy. All this enabled the author to formulate several recommendations in the context of certain directions of the Georgian NIS development.

Keywords: national innovation system (NIS); financing innovative developmment; local innovation centers (technoparks, poles of competitiveness, etc.ж); borrowing innovation. 


As you know, in the last two decades in developed countries, a course has been taken to build an innovation economy. At present, Georgia is facing such a task. Therefore, in order to make fewer mistakes in its construction, it is necessary to study the experience of developed countries in this direction, especially in the field of experience in the formation of innovation systems. The fact is that along with the successful creation of components of innovation systems, failures happen very often, the result of which are serious financial losses, both in public financial resources and in the private sector, as many scholars have pointed out. Thus, in a completely new fundamental research, it is noted that "against the backdrop of the spread of the model of innovations associated with fashion in certain areas, the objective difficulties in evaluating new directions, the risks of" bubbles "in the spheres in relation to which the expectations of breakthrough development are formed are amplified" ([Структурная политика ..., 2018, page 11] from: [European Parliamentary ..., 2016]). However, in some countries that have been excessively carried away by fashion to build an innovative economy, many "bubbles" associated with large financial losses in both the public and private sectors have emerged not only in the field of "breakthrough", but also "improving" innovations. Therefore, it is necessary to study the experience of developed countries in the construction of innovation systems in order to make fewer errors associated with financial losses while forming the components of the innovation system in Georgia.

Another circumstance that we want to note in the introduction is the need for a rational combination of structural, industrial (structural sectoral), regional (structural regional) and innovation policies, and, in the private sector, business coordination (according to the version of the Association Agreement of Georgia with EU - "enterprise policies"), since the effectiveness of the development and functioning of both innovation systems and, in general, the economy depends on the degree of mutual coordination of the mechanisms for their coordination. As is known, Georgia signed the Association Agreement with the EU, which clearly defines the "structural policy" in its broadest sense, followed by "industrial policy" and "innovation policy" as an integral part of industrial policy, as well as - "Enterprise policy". And in the above-mentioned fundamental research all the points are placed over "and": structural policy is viewed as an industrial policy in a broader sense, and innovation and regional politicians are its most important constituent parts. Therefore, in all chapters of this study, this circumstance is taken into account.

In the articlethe transformation of innovationsystems over the past 50-60 years is being investigated. First, the main existing models of national innovation systems (NIS) were described in the world. Then, the processes of transformation of NIS in three countries were investigated: France, South Korea and Finland. In the process of transformation (development) of NIS, two stages can be distinguished. The first stage - 50-80th years of the last century, when there was no clear allocation of NIS and innovation policy from the general mechanisms of coordination of economic development and regulation took place within the framework of the overall state structural (industrial and regional) policy and private business coordination (i.e. of enterprise policies). The second stage of the transformation, when in the developed countries the course on the formation of an innovative economy was taken, began in the last years of the last century and continues to this day. In some countries, the transformation of models of innovation systems has been successful. Examples of successful transformation in the work are examples of France and South Korea (in the latter the transformation was the most successful). At the same time, the innovation system of Finland, which before the transformation was considered one of the most successful in the world, after intensive transformational changes ceased to support economic growth and actually ceased to work. Obviously, "bubbles" appeared in the system, which did not give the financial means invested in them. Therefore, this article provides the recommendations of the OECD experts on its reform, which will be useful to take into account in the process of forming the NIS of Georgia. In addition, in the last paragraph of this article, the interrelation of the overall structural, structural sectoral (industrial), innovation and structural regional policies is shown using the example of several countries. All this enabled the author to formulate several recommendations in the context of certain directions of the Georgian NIS development. 

2.1. Basic NIS models 

In the economic literature, four main NIS models are distinguished: the "Euro-Atlantic", "East Asian", "alternative" and the "triple helix model" currently being implemented.

Before characterizing these models, we will make two digressions.

First, we note that in the structure of NIS, the regional components of NIS are of great importance: technopolis, centers of competitiveness, innovative clusters, etc.

Secondly, we note that no countrycan develop without borrowing (i.e., import) in a different form of innovation (acquiring know-how, licenses, importing production technologies, organizing joint innovative enterprises with foreign partners, which should be reflected in the structure of the NIS being formed.

Now let us briefly characterize the main models of NIS.

In the Euro-Atlantic model, which was implemented in different versions in the USA, Canada, the developed countries of Europe (including small ones), there are all components of the NIS structure: fundamental and applied science, research and development, development of prototypes and their introduction into mass production . That is, it is a model of a complete innovation cycle from the emergence of an innovative idea to the mass production of a finished product [Модели ..., 2013]. In developed European countries NIS concentrates around the largest universities (however in a number of countries - France, Denmark, Sweden and others, other research institutes and academies of science play an important role). A major role is played by regional projects in the field of innovation, following the example of the US Silicon Valley, but the principles of their construction and financing vary from country to country. Small and medium-sized businesses are taking an active part in financing research and development along with big business. It is noteworthy that in small European countries (Sweden, the Netherlands) applied research is financed primarily through grants and joint projects with large TNCs. "At the present time in Western Europe, the processes of combining NIS into a unified scientific, technical and innovative space are developing. To this end, special mechanisms have been developed (various programs, technological platforms). "The coordinating tools of the pan-European programs are innovative networks, technology platforms, joint technology initiatives, ESFRI road maps, and new types of partnerships. However, national innovation systems continue to be the nucleus [Глобальная ..., 2010; Модели ..., 2013].

The East Asian model differs from the Euro-Atlantic model in that, firstly, universities as centers of innovation development play a much smaller role than research laboratories for corporations, and the NIS of these countries are almost completely deprived of the components of fundamental science, and secondly, these countries  orienting at exporting high-tech products, mostly borrowed technologies from countries with Euro-Atlantic type of NIS, thirdly, the overwhelming share of R & D spending was in the frequent sector (Japan, South Korea, C ngapur, Hong Kong, Taiwan) [Авдокушин Е., 2010; Модели ..., 2013]. However, by the mid-1980s, such a system had exhausted itself to a certain extent and since then a gradual transformation of the NIS of these countries began [Авдокушин Е., 2010; Глобальная ..., 2010; Модели ..., 2013]. 

An alternative model of innovation development was formed mainly in agricultural countries that do not possess significant scientific potential, as a result of which there is no block of fundamental and applied science in their NIS. When developing NIS in these countries, emphasis is placed on the development of innovative management of individual industries (for example, agriculture, food industry, light industry, tourism) and on the adoption of technologies, rather than on their development (Chile, Thailand, Portugal). However, gradually, in these countries, the development of some high-tech industries and the formation of the necessary innovative infrastructure began to take place, including in the field of basic and applied science. Since this model is based almost entirely on borrowing new technologies - it is less expensive and attractive for countries unable to withstand high financial costs [Модели ..., 2013].

The model of the triple helix is a product of the development of the Euro-Atlantic model and, in its final form, it does not exist in any country. The greatest development was in the USA, and its individual elements - in some developed countries of Western Europe, Brazil and Japan [Модели ..., 2013]. As applied to innovation development, the triple helix model describes the interaction of three institutes (science, state, business) at each stage of creation and introduction of an innovative product into production. In this model, each of the three institutions (universities (science and education), state, business) partially assumes the functions of other institutional spheres, and the ability to perform unconventional functions by each of these institutions is a source of innovation. "In practice, this is reflected in the fact that universities, by engaging in education and research, also contribute to the development of the economy through the creation of new companies in university incubators, business partly provides educational services, and the state acts as a public entrepreneur in addition to its traditional legislative and regulatory role" [Ицковиц Г., 2011; Катуков Д., ..., 2012; Модели ..., 2013]. In fact, the triple helix model relies on the interaction of its three participants (the state, science and business) at all levels: regional (or sectoral), national, integral. This approach contributes to the effective development of regional innovation systems, sectoral and intersectoral interaction between different regions. Consequently, the objectives of regional and national development are directly interrelated and are achieved with the participation of three key players [Соловьева Ю., 2015, p. 133].

Now consider the experience of developing NIS in three countries (France, South Korea and Finland), from which you can borrow a lot of useful for the process of forming NIS Georgia. 

2.2. Transformation of the NIS of France 

In the late 90's the twentieth century France faced serious structural problems of the national economy: insufficient level of innovation development of industry and innovation infrastructure (relatively low level of allocations of industrial enterprises in the IR, lagging behind the main competitors in the field of patenting, mastering the results of R & D, venture capital development, and production and use of new technologies, an insufficiently favorable business climate for the creation of new enterprises, a weak level of development with cooperation between enterprises and research laboratories), the weak competitive positions of a number of key high technology industries in the world market, the threat of transferring productive capacities to other countries, significant regional imbalances in industrial and scientific and technological development, a sharp decline in the interest of young people in engineering professions and a deficit highly qualified engineering staff, the weakness of the institution of public-private partnership, which was one of the main reasons for the substantial lagging behind of the country from its main competitors in the field of industrial development of R & D results [Черноуцан Е., 2010, p. 43-44].

This and other circumstances (challenges) caused the intensification of efforts by the French authorities in developing strategies (programs) for industrial (and innovation) policy and strengthening instruments for its implementation. In 2004, President Chirac announced the intensification of industrial policy as the most important state priority. The main tools for implementing this policy are the mobilization of the country's industrial and scientific and technological potential, stimulating the process of innovation (from creation to implementation) both at the national and regional levels. Much attention is paid to the development of various forms of partnership between private and public entities, especially interaction between the spheres of science, education and business. The most important principles of the new industrial strategy of the state are: the course for the development of a large-scale innovation process affecting the entire territory of the country and stimulating the interaction of the main participants in this process (enterprises, scientific laboratories, higher education) [Черноуцан Е., 2010, p. 43].

To solve this double task, special regional clusters are being created in the country, the so-called poles of competitiveness, which become a key instrument of the new industrial, innovative and regional policy of the country. The definition of these poles is the following (financial act of 2004): grouping in a certain territory of enterprises (from large to small), research laboratories (public and private) and institutions of higher education, which are called upon to work together for the implementation of economic projects development and innovation. For example, for four years (2007-2010), these centers allowed the implementation of projects of more than 4 billion euros, financed by 30% by the state and local governments and by 70% by the enterprises themselves [Калугина Е., 2010.].In Francetodaythere are 71 Pole of Competitiveness. The provision of financial assistance to the best innovative projects occurs most often through Fond unique interministériel (FUI) – a single inter-ministerial fund.In addition to a single inter-ministerial fund, the state attracts other institutions to participate in financing interesting projects created in the Poles. For example, the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) is the National Research Agency, Caisse de dépôt et consignation (CDC), a depository or an organization called OSEO. OSEO is a state organization that performs three missions: assistance in the development of innovations, guaranteeing bank financing and investments, and, finally, partner financing. This organization most often finances small and medium-sized enterprises[Калугина Е., 2010.].

The government of France in the recent period actively follows the dirigist principles of regulation and coordination. So, in March 2010, the government announced new measures in favor of the development of French industry, in which four main directions were outlined: 1. Industrial innovation; 2. Improving the competitiveness of French enterprises; 3. Improve competencies, especially for the development of knowledge and skills in the prospective sectors; 4. Strengthening the structuring of production chains [Калугина Е., 2010.].

In the framework of industrial policy, government intervention is designed to encourage private actors to innovate, develop and coordinate. Great importance is attached to improving the coordination of private and public actors, eliminating the lack of coordination between basic research, public and private research, industrialists and subcontractors, it is also expected that the state should participate more actively in the strategic planning of enterprises in which it has a stake [Калугина Е., 2010].

The relevant documents focus on the financing of French industry, fiscal and financial incentive measures, the creation of appropriate coordinating structures (for example, strategic committees on production chains), etc. In particular, in 2008, the Strategic Investment Fund (FSI) was established with a capital of 35 billion euros, whose official goal was to help promising French enterprises to increase their own funds. The fund is part of the capital of various enterprises or it can act as one of the investors [Калугина Е., 2010; Кондратьев В., 2014].

Let us dwell on one more question on France, which underpins our previous proposals [Бурдули В., 2016] on the mobilization of funds for investing in the development of production in Georgia: it is constant that French enterprises must have different sources of financing, both bank loans and own capital. Enterprises need financing, and hence in shareholders. France is characterized as a country with a high saving rate. However, less than 25% of these savings are invested in shares of enterprises. Within the framework of the corresponding program on industrial policy (Measure 21. The orientation of French savings and bank lending to finance industry), it is proposed to develop tax measures in order to reorient French savings to long-term investments in shares of French industrial enterprise [Калугина Е., 2010].

Thus, from the experience of France, the following main conclusions can be drawn: 1. The role of the state in regulating economic, in particular innovation development, has been revitalized, the dirigist traditions characteristic of the Keynesian model of development regulation have revived on a qualitatively new level: the state develops strategies for nationwide and regional development, implements tax incentives for innovation development, creates and uses the funds of the strategic investment fund (FSI) to participate in private statehood partnership (including the creation of venture capital companies), establishes foundations and other organizations to provide financial assistance to the best innovation projects (FUI, ANR, CDC, OSEO). 2. In the process of coordinating industrial development, an integrated approach is used: not only directly innovative processes are supported, but also other activities that contribute to the progressive development of the economy: sharing participation in enterprises (not always associated with innovative restructuring), strengthening the structuring of production chains (for which are created strategic committees on production chains). 3. Successfully, non-trivially solves regional problem in the form of creating poles of competitiveness, where the goals and instruments for the implementation of regional and national development are directly interrelated and the achievement of goals is carried out on the basis of well-coordinated interaction of three key players (science and education, the state, business). 

2.3. Korean miracle: innovative modernization in South Korea 

The first stage of South Korea's industrial modernization began in the 1960s, when it embarked on the implementation of an innovative project in extremely unfavorable starting conditions (shortage of resource potential, tough competitive environment, technological backwardness). In this situation, reliance on purely market mechanisms to promote modernization would be fatal. And only purposeful state policy helped to accomplish an "innovative miracle". The South Korean authorities initially relied on the creation under their patronage of large monopolies capable of making an innovative leap at the expense of their privileged position[Корейское ..., 2008]. The processes of concentration and capitalization of capital in the country's economy led to the creation of large financial and industrial groups (FIG-chaebols) that arose on the basis of large trading companies and turned into multi-sectoral conglomerates. A little later, the active development of medium and small businesses began. About fifty chaebols (Hyundai, Samsung, Daewoo, LG, etc.) play a key role in the country's economy. Their experience shows how successful investments can be in high-tech innovative production: they have become diversified export-oriented holdings (at first they did not have their own banking structures and received funding from state-owned banks, but later they also included private banks). The state constantly encouraged structural reforms in industry, in particular, by exempting from import duties the importation of production technologies, an active tax policy to stimulate R & D, and so on [Корейское ..., 2008; Селезнев П., 2014].

In the process of innovative modernization in the 60-80s of the last century, the foreign factor played a major role. The breakthrough program was initially built on the creative copying of foreign technologies. And there were a lot of such forms of borrowing: turnkey contracts, licensing, consulting services. The decisive role was played by the creation of joint venture innovation companies with Japanese partners. Later, our own innovative production technologies also began to develop, but by now there is still a strong dependence of the state on imported foreign equipment and technologies due to underdevelopment of the basic technologies inside the country [Селезнев П., 2014: с.289-290; Справка ..., 2011].

The beginning of the second stage of NIS transformation was predetermined by the crisis of the late 1990s, which forced the South Korean leadership to accelerate the innovation course, and a special program was developed and implemented aimed at accelerating development and innovative breakthroughs. Within the framework of this program, a project known as the "4 + 9" scheme (4 - starting entities, 9 - territories that joined the project later) is being implemented in the context of the regions. The main idea of ​​the "4 + 9" initiative was to form a series of economic clusters, each of which would have a certain specialization. For example, Mr. Dejon was and is responsible for information technology, bio-production, production of high-tech parts and materials, robotics, and the port city of Busan became the center of logistics and tourism [Абдурасулова Д., 2009; Селезнев П., 2014].

In the process of transformation, the leadership of the Republic of South Korea formulated the tasks of economic reform, which primarily provided for the development of NIS components. The strategy of the "new industrial development" of the country was developed in which the ways of forming the basic components of innovative development of the national economy were determined on the basis of structuring the production and technical base, mechanisms and investment climate for innovative development. Within the framework of this strategy, the components of the innovation system (technology parks, centers of technological innovation, regional research centers, etc.) were created in regions based on industries concentrated on this territory, and on this basis, through the implementation of "pilot projects" - regional innovative clusters. Much attention was paid to the organization of stimulation of interaction between enterprises and research organizations for the purpose of R & D, the formation of an institutional framework and an enabling environment for the development of innovations at the local level, strengthening networking contacts between industrial enterprises  universities, research institutes as the main participants in the innovation process [Абдурасулова Д., 2009; Селезнев П., 2014].

From the experience of South Korea, we can draw the following main conclusions: 1. In South Korea, an innovative industrial breakthrough and the country's withdrawal into the ranks of developed countries made it possible to carry out a purposeful state economic policy, that is, the successes of this breakthrough in the 1960s-1980s were achieved thanks to well-organized intensive state dirigism. 2. The main role in the innovation breakthrough was played by FIGs (chaebols), in which the banking component in the 1960s-1980s was mainly of state character [Селезнев П., 2014; Справка ..., 2011]. 3. The new industrial innovative economy was built on the principle of borrowing in new forms of new technologies (from countries with the Euro-Atlantic model of NIS and from Japan). 4. An important role in the industrial innovation leap was played by the creation of joint, primarily venture, innovative enterprises in conjunction with Japanese partners [Селезнев П., 2014; Справка ..., 2011]. 5. Both the developed countries of Europe and Japan and South Korea in the international market of manufacturing products began to crowd rapidly developing China, India, Turkey and some other countries, which forced the leadership of South Korea to accelerate the innovation course: a special program was developed to accelerate development and Innovative breakthroughs, which are carried out by structuring at the regional level (the "4 + 9" project) the production, technical and innovation base, tools and investment climate for innovative development. 

2.4. The process of formation of NIS in Finland and the problems of its reforming 

The industry of Finland was able to switch to the production of goods with a large volume of added value in the period from the mid-1960s to the 1980s. Due to intensive partnership between the state and the private sector [Справка ..., 2011]. Despite the fact that the innovative activity was characteristic of the Finnish economy for many years of its development, it can be argued that it was precisely from the end of the 1980s. innovations became the main driving force of the country's economic growth and the basis for entering foreign markets: if earlier the innovation process could not be separated from the production one, by that time an independent, export-oriented, science-intensive, innovative sector of the economy appeared in the country[Инновационная ..., 2014]. The NIS of Finland has been clearly and distinctively structured over the years. It is formed by the following organizations: the Council for Science and Technology Policy of Finland under the leadership of the Prime Minister, the Ministry of Employment and Economy, the Ministry of Education, the Finnish Agency for Financing the Development of Technologies and Innovations "Tekes", the Technical Research Center of Finland "VTT", Export Support Association “Finpro”, the State Fund “Finnvera”, the National Innovation Fund “Sitra”, other ministries and departments, industrial companies, technological and polytechnic higher education institutions [Радченко А., 2011; Мальцева А., ..., 2012; Инновационная ..., 2014]. The key elements of the innovative infrastructure of Finland, directly implementing the state innovation policy and innovation activity, are the technoparks of Finland [Мальцева А., ..., 2012: 114; Инновационная ..., 2014].

The Finnish Agency for the Financing of Technologies and Innovations "Tekes" (established in 1983 under the Ministry of Trade and Industry, today - the Ministry of Employment and Economy) annually allocates funds for more than 60% of innovation projects offered in Finland (most for projects in private sector, the smaller - in the state sector). Most projects are invested on the terms of their co-financing by private capital [Инновационная ..., 2014, p. 5; Мальцева А., Кархунен П., 2012,p. 111] (here, for reference, we note that in Finland, much of R & D spending is made by private capital, for example, in 2010, total R & D expenditures amounted to 3.70% of GDP, of which the share of private capital expenditures was 74.6% , while public expenditures - 25.4% [Соснов Ф., 2011, p. 222]). The Agency implements a number of programs, within the framework of which it provides the following services to small innovative enterprises: financing (reimbursement of expenses for the implementation of the project within the framework of approved standards); expertise; development of strategic centers of science, technology and innovation; international cooperation; information support. For growing enterprises, „Tekes“ offers services of business accelerators, private companies providing access to investment resources and a network of business partners. The peculiarity of Finnish business accelerators is that they are not competitors but investors of start-up companies, and therefore are commercially interested in their effective functioning [Мальцева А., Кархунен П., 2012, р. 112].

The Finnish Innovation Fund “Sitra” (an independent public foundation under the Finnish Parliament) was established in 1967. In particular, on the basis of the Fund's recommendations, the activities of the Finnish Agency for Financing Technologies and Innovations "Tekes" were built, a start-up financing system for the commercialization of promising technological development, a system of venture financing of R & D and attraction of private funds to innovative activities. In addition, a system has been created to support developing enterprises based on business incubators [Инновационная ..., 2014,p. 7, 8]. “Sitra” Foundation creates effective financial and consulting support for innovative companies at the initial stage and stage of growth in a number of areas: bioeconomics, energy, electronic and electrical engineering, machine building and metalworking, timber industry, food and other sectors. [Мальцева А., Кархунен П., 2012, p. 112, 113; Радченко А., 2011].  “Sitra” Fund is an integrator of venture partner networks in Finland and Europe, providing access of innovative companies to venture financial resources [Мальцева А., Кархунен П., 2012, p. 112, 113].

The State Technical Research Center of Finland "VTT" is the leading research center in the country, representing a non-profit organization that is part of the Finnish innovation system and operates under the auspices of the Ministry of Employment and Economy of Finland. "VTT" was founded in January 1942 and currently unites about 2700 scientists and specialists in 10 cities of the country. The budget of "VTT" was stable in 2009-2014 at about 280 million euros. The share of public funding is about 90 million euros[Инновационная ..., 2014, p. 6; Мальцева А., Кархунен П., 2012, p. 111].

The Finnish Academy (AF) is located in the administrative structure of the Ministry of Education and, just like „Tekes“, does not have research subdivisions in its structure. Financing of research work on the AF line in 2013 amounted to 324 million euros and was distributed as follows: universities - over 80%; NII - about 10%; foreign organizations - more than 8%. This amount of funding provides work for about 8000 specialists in universities and research centers [Инновационная ..., 2014: 7; Мальцева А., Кархунен П., 2012, p. 111, 112].

Other leading participants in the innovation system of Finland are: the state venture capital fund "Finnvera", created to provide risk financing (mainly loans and guarantees), first of all for small and medium-sized enterprises, development of their international and export activities, covering risks from losses in export operations and investment activity abroad; Finnish Export Promotion Association “Finpro”, whose mission is to promote Finnish products and assist the entry of Finnish companies into international markets [Инновационная ..., 2014: 8; Мальцева А., Кархунен П., 2012, p. 113, 114].

Technological parks play an important role in the system of commercialization of technological developments in Finland, which are one of the main elements of the country's innovation infrastructure, which contribute to deepening the cooperation of state research centers and universities with industry, including small and medium-sized enterprises. A feature of the majority of Finnish technoparks is their predominantly large size in terms of the territory and the number of serviced companies, as well as the network structure. The network structure presupposes the presence of a system of elements of an innovation structure of smaller scales operating in the territory of parks that are leaseholders of the park and working with the involvement of even smaller companies providing services on outsourcing terms. Currently, 22 technoparks are operating in Finland, created by municipal authorities on the basis of 20 universities and polytechnic institutions of higher learning. At the institutional level, the development of industrial parks, technoparks and clusters in Finland is carried out by the „TEKELAssociation (full name: Finnish Science Park Association). This association oversees the activities of more than 1,700 innovative companies, employing more than 37,000 professionals and scientists [Справка ..., 2011; Мальцева А., Кархунен П., 2012, p. 114; Инновационная ..., 2014].

The innovation system of Finland worked very well for the time being. However, approximately since 2008, the country's innovation system began to experience great difficulties due to the crisis and actually ceased to support economic growth. The country's GDP is still below the pre-crisis level of 2008, and "the share of goods with high added value in Finnish exports has dropped significantly in recent years - from 23% in 2000 to 10% in 2010 and 7% in 2015 The structural changes in exports turned out to be so fast and sharp that there are no international parallels to it "[Бурнаева Е., 2017]. As early as 2015, Finland's top officials stated the fact that the innovation system was not working well, and in 2016 the Finnish government ordered the OECD experts to assess the state of the country's innovation system and develop recommendations for its further development [Бурнаева Е., 2017].

According to an interim report of OECD experts (the final report will be published in June 2017) Finland still belongs to the group of leading world "research nations", despite the loss of leadership positions. In 2000-2010, (with the exception of 2006-2007) in terms of the share of expenditure on R & D in GDP, Finland was the second largest in the OECD after Israel (the maximum was reached in 2009 and left 3.749%), but by 2015 dropped to seventh place (2 , 9%), losing to South Korea, Japan, Sweden, Austria and Denmark [Бурнаева Е., 2017; from: Gross ..., 2015].

At the same time, the OECD experts in the interim report focused on the shortcomings of the current model of Finland's innovation system and made recommendations on how to effectively reform it.

According to the OECD conclusion, the main problem is the weak innovative activity of companies and its inadequate support from the state in comparison with other countries, where, in order to accelerate economic growth, emphasis is placed on enterprise R & D. If in 2000-2010 on the industry accounted for more than 70% of R & D financing in Finland (as much as 74.3% in 2008), then by 2015 it decreased to 54.8%. Meanwhile, in order to restore international competitiveness and increase labor productivity, Finland needs high-tech exports and innovative entrepreneurship. This also applies to companies in traditional industries (such as forestry), which should be able to compete globally. A high level of expertise and new technologies should be used more efficiently than previously, in order to produce innovations that could increase market growth [Бурнаева Е., 2017].

The report emphasizes that Finland's national innovation system should develop as a whole in the interaction of all its participants. Attention should be paid to strengthening the overall management of the system and enhancing the interaction between the scientific and business communities [Бурнаева Е., 2017].

The OECD believes that it is necessary to focus public funding for R & D more on the innovation activity of enterprises. It is recommended to develop new models of public-private partnership. It is also necessary to continue the reform of universities and the consolidation of research units. Such mechanisms as centers of excellence should be used to encourage academically initiated and industry-oriented research, as well as joint science and business plans [Бурнаева Е., 2017].

From the experience of Finland, we can draw the following main conclusions: 1.The Finnish NIS began to form quite a long time and until 2008 it worked well. The decline in GDP and a sharp decline in the share of goods with high added value in Finnish exports were largely due to the massive transfer of production (both core and developing innovation) to other countries. Unlike, for example, France, where the transfer of the main production abroad was due to high taxes and high wages costs, in Finland the transfer of the main production occurred mainly to countries where the high sales of products were guaranteed, and the transfer of innovation systems, for example, to Russia, was justified by profit from the sale of innovations. As a result, corresponding products were produced in these countries and exports of similar products from Finland were discontinued. 2. The failure of the innovation system working in Finland was largely due to its excessive cumbersome and sputterness, too, and at the same time, due to insufficient  the coordination of innovation development systems and the companies producing the final product. At the same time, it is impossible to create many "breakthrough" innovations in a small country (there is no possibility to gather enough high-quality specialists for this purpose, to obtain free of charge information necessary for development). Therefore, as noted by OECD experts, a profound transformation of the Finnish NIS is needed. 3. At the same time, from the previous experience of the Finnish NIS, we should pay attention to some well-proven mechanisms of interaction between the participants in the innovation process, for example, the mechanism of interaction between business accelerators, which are private companies, with start-up companies, in which business accelerators are not competitors, but investors of start-up companies and therefore are commercially interested in their effective functioning. 

2.5. "Intertwining" of policies and state dirigisme 

In order to ensure that the overall state regulation of development in a particular country does not take place within the narrowly understood "industrial policy", but within the framework of a general structural policy containing industrial (structural branch), innovation and structural regional policies, we will cite a few more excerpts related to the experience of Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden.

In the 1960s and 1980s, measures aimed at preserving existing structures (in agriculture and forestry, railway transport, shipbuilding, aerospace industry) dominated in the framework of structural policy in Germany. However, subsidies (with the exception of aircraft construction) have not been able to make their products competitive in international markets. Gradually, this kind of policy began to be abandoned. More effective is structural policy, which is adaptive (shaping) in nature and "is aimed at facilitating structural transformation. In this case, the state uses its funds to help economic entities in the process of adapting to new production and technological challenges, contributes to progressive shifts, actively forms promising directions for development " [БеловВ., БарановаК., 2010]. The Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology in 2008 briefly defined industrial policy as “shtandort policy pursued in the interests of industry". Its main goal is to create favorable framework conditions for industrial innovation, investment and production.In fact, it is a policy to create favorable framework conditions for the development of a specific economic and territorial space with the aim of attracting (and retaining) capital, services and labor in it. An integral part of this policy is the support of specific projects in industry, including in high-tech and innovative spheres. Shtandort policy(Standardrichtlinie) is carried out at the federal, land and municipal levels and combines all types of structural policy. This policy is most effective at the regional level, and probably, therefore, the German state decided to use it to support modern industrial policy"[Белов В., Баранова К., 2010].

In the Netherlands, the Ministry of Economy, Agriculture and Innovation, formed in 2011, has developed a new entrepreneurial and innovative policy based on a sectoral approach, to stimulate the development of nine "leading sectors". They include water supply, food industry, gardening, high technologies, biological sciences, chemistry, energy, logistics and "creative" industries. In these sectors the Netherlands has competitive advantages, and the state regards them as priorities [Кондратьев В., 2014].

It is difficult to single out Sweden's industrial policy from its economic policy. in many respects its industry is developing under the influence of measures designed for the entire national economy of the country. Its characteristic feature is interlacing with innovative, environmental and regional policies. The state's partnership with private business is also actively used, which is implemented not only in the implementation of individual projects, but also at the macroeconomic level (Antyushina N., 2010). The main direction of action in innovation policy is the achievement of the integrity of the innovation chain, adequate financing, as well as coordination of actions of numerous participants of the multi-tier innovation chain. Therefore, the formation and maintenance of the national innovation system (NIS) in the functional state, coordination and cooperation between the three spheres of the national economy: education - science - production [Антюшина Н., 2010 ].

From the citations quoted it is obvious: in all countries there is (in the sphere of state regulation) an interlacing of seqtoral structural (industrial) and innovation policies; the state implements both direct regulation of business (financial interventions) and indirect (creates appropriate "framework" conditions); in the state strategies, in accordance with the specifics of a particular country, the sectoral priorities are singled out, for which state coordination is directed.

“The interlacing” of policies poses the question of the need to carry out a general structural sectoral policy, in which direct financial interventions of the state (including the creation of enterprises with state participation and state venture for the creation of innovative enterprises) and indirect regulation of business (creation for it has such framework conditions that business at the expense of its own resources would strive to create the financial, industrial and innovation necessary for innovation development The majority of investments in production and innovation are made by the company's own resources, that is, the private business independently solves most of the issues related to restructuring, innovation, and the introduction of technologies.The state within the framework of indirect "framework" coordination of business development should help it  in creating modern financial and other institutional and organizational mechanisms necessary for innovation and in general number of industrial production for the necessary restructuring of the economy. This is especially important in the context of Georgia, as currently there are no effective mechanisms for mobilizing financial resources for investing in real production as for a large business in the private sector, as well as accumulating for this purpose population savings in general, as well as small and medium-sized businesses.

Therefore, in Georgia, it is necessary to create effective state mechanisms to promote industrial and innovation development in both the fiscal system and the financial sector, and in the latter, in addition to financial mechanisms for state coordination (primarily direct methods of financial intervention in the form of investments in production), it is necessary to develop (and this is the most important thing) the relevant financial mechanisms directly in the business environment.

From the analysis of sectoral structural (industrial) and innovation policies, it can be concluded that each country has its own approach to their organization (strategies, institutions, tools), depending on the problems facing the country. 


In conclusion, we will briefly summarize what can be learned from the experience of the countries examined for the successful formation of the Georgian NIS.

Conducting a successful innovation policy in a country that begins practically from scratch is impossible without the strengthening of state dirigism. In particular, this should happen not only with the help of regulatory instruments, but also with the help of agreements with capable business representatives. For example, President of the South Korean Reforms, President Pak Jong-hee, in the early 1960s, tasked individual businessmen (mainly engaged in trade) to engage in completely different business (automotive, shipbuilding, tape recorders and televisions, household chemicals, light industry) , while promising financial and other support from the state [Корейское ..., 2008]."Cheboli" (FIG) were created and in a relatively short time there were many large mainly export-oriented industries. Such a mechanism of interaction between the state and business should be adopted at the present stage in Georgia.

We also add that the priority task of developing an innovation policy strategy in Georgia should be the issue of designing regional centers for industrial and innovation activities, structuring of which, in our opinion, is worthwhile to be modeled on the French poles of competitiveness.

It is possible to adopt a lot of other things from the experience of the countries surveyed: it is necessary, guided by the experience of South Korea, to create FIGs with the aim of organizing multi-sectoral conglomerates and developing innovative activities in their constituent enterprises, as well as creating new (including venture) innovative enterprises; adopt the ways of borrowing innovations - the acquisition of licenses, know-how, the construction of foreign firms equipped with new technologies of enterprises and the delivery of the object "turnkey"; in the sphere of state financing of innovation activity and innovative renovation of enterprises, the creation of national state funds and other institutions such as FSI, FUI, ANR, CDS, OSEO with the appropriate regulation of their activities is necessary, following the example of France; in the field of external financing of innovation, it is necessary, as in the case of small European countries, to establish appropriate links with certain major TNCs in order to interest them in granting grants to finance innovative developments in universities and research institutes, and to establish joint innovative projects with these TNCs; In addition, the organization of high technology innovative enterprises (enterprises) in conjunction with foreign partners in itself implies their share in financing the construction of these industries. From the experience of Finland, you can take on the mechanism of financial and consulting support from investors of new companies (start-ups) at the initial stage and the stage of growth. 


  1. Abesadze R., Burduli V. 2009. Innovative Activities and Their Coordination under Advancing Globalization.J.: The Caucasus & Globalization. Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies. Volume 3. Issue 4. CA&CC Press. SWEDEN, 2009. P. 68-79. – Электронный ресурс: http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/innovative-activities-and-their-coordination-under-advancing-globalization
  2. Association Agreement between, on the one hand, the EU and the European Atomic Energy Association and their member countries, on the other hand, Georgia (in Georgian) – Electronic resource: https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/2496959?publication=0
  3. European Parliamentary Research Services (2016). Global trendometer. Essays of medium and long-term global trends. Brusseles. – Elеctronic resurce: https://espas.secure.europarl.europa.eu/orbis/sites/default/files/generated/document/en/EPRS_STU(2016)573301_EN.pdf
  4. Gross Domestic Spending on R&D, % of GDP (2015). – Электронный ресурс: http://www.compareyourcountry.org/science-and-technology
  5. Абдурасулова Д., 2009. Промышленная политика Южной Кореи.16.02.2009. – Электронный ресурс:      http://institutiones.com/industry/897-promyshlennaya-politika-yuzhnoj-korei.html
  6. Абесадзе Р., 2016. Инновации,  инновационные сети и общие направления формирования инновационной экономики в Грузии.– В сборнике: PRZEDSIEBIORSTWOW STRUKTURACH SIECI. Lublin, Widawnictwo KUL.
  7. http://www.pgie.tsu.ge/contentimage/sxvadasxva/jurnali_ekonomisti/_1-2016__.pdf
  8. Авдокушин Е.Ф., 2010. Национальная инновационная система Японии. – Ж.: Вопросы новой экономики,  4 (16).
  9. Антюшина Н. М. 2010. Промышленная политика Швеции. В сборнике: Промышленная политика европейских стран (Институт Европы РАН). М., 2010. – Электронный ресурс: ieras.ru/doclad/259/259-1%20(1).doc 
  10. Белов В. Б., Баранова К. К 2010.. Промышленная политика в Германии. В сборнике: Промышленная политика европейских стран (Институт Европы РАН). М., 2010. – Электронный ресурс: ieras.ru/doclad/259/259-1%20(1).doc 
  11. Бурдули В. 2016. Формирование экономических механизмов привлечения свободных финансовых ресурсов национального бизнеса на создание производств в актуальных секторах экономики. – Ekonomisti, 2016, № 1 (Volume VIII). Стр. 46-58 (0.8 п.л.). – Электронный ресурс: http://www.pgie.tsu.ge/contentimage/sxvadasxva/jurnali_ekonomisti/_1-2016__.pdf
  12. Бурнаева Е. М. 2017. Финляндии необходимо новое видение национальной инновационной политики (ИМЭМО). 02.03.2017. – Электронный ресурс: http://www.imemo.ru/index.php?page_id=502&id=2959
  13. Глобальная трансформация инновационных систем. Под ред. Н.И.Ивановой, М., ИМЭМО РАН, 2010.
  14. Инновационная система Финляндии. 31.07.2014. – Электронный ресурс: www.rusfintrade.ru/files/article/3221/20140731_1.doc
  15. Ицковиц Г., 2011. Модель тройной спирали. – Ж.: Инновационная Россия, №4.
  16. Калугина Е. Ю., 2010. Промышленная политика Франции. В сборнике: Промышленная политика европейских стран (Институт Европы РАН). М., 2010. – Электронный ресурс: ieras.ru/doclad/259/259-1%20(1).doc 
  17. Катуков Д.Д., Малыгин В.Е., Смородинская Н.В. 2012. Институциональная среда глобализированной экономики: развитие сетевых взаимодействий. М., Институт экономики, 2012.
  18. Кондратьев Владимир (ИМЭМО РАН), 2014. Свежее дыхание промышленной политики. – Электронный ресурс: http://www.perspektivy.info/rus/ekob/svezheje_dyhanije_promyshlennoj_politiki_2014-05-22.htm
  19. Корейское чудо – уроки для России. 20.03.2008. – Электронный ресурс: http://www.contrtv.ru/common/2641/
  20. Мальцева А. А., Кархунен П. 2012. Феномен Финляндии: развитие инфраструктуры генерации и трансфера инноваций как фактор экономического роста. Ж.: Контуры глобальных трансформаций: политика, экономика, право. Выпуск №6 (26), Том 5. Электронный ресурс: http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/fenomen-finlyandii-razvitie-infrastruktury-generatsii-i-transfera-innovatsiy-kak-faktor-ekonomicheskogo-rosta
  21. Модели формирования национальных инновационных систем. 13.09.2013. – Электронный ресурс: http://kapital-rus.ru/articles/article/modeli_formirovaniya_nacionalnyh_innovacionnyh_sistem/#
  22. Национальные инновационные системы в России и ЕС, 2006. М.: ЦИПРАН РАН. Под редакцией: Иванова В. В. (Россия), Ивановой Н. И. (Россия), Розебума Й (Нидерланды), Хайсберса Х. (Нидерланды).
  23. Национальные инновационные системы крупных западноевропейских стран (Великобритания, Германия, Франция, Италия). Минск, 2015. – Электронный ресурс: http://knowledge.allbest.ru/economy/2c0a65635b2ac69b4d43b89421316d36_1.html
  24. Радченко А. 2011. Инновационная система Финляндии. – Ж.: Научная жизнь, №1 (16). – Электронный ресурс: http://www.mirec.ru/2011-01/innovacionnaya-sistema-finlyandii
  25. Селезнев П. С., 2014, Инновационная политика современного государства: стратегии, модели, практика. Диссертация на соискание ученой степени д. п. н. Москва. Электронный ресурс: http://www.library.fa.ru/files/Seleznev.pdf
  26. Соловьева Ю., 2015. Формирование и развитие системы трансфера технологий в России и за рубежом. – Ж.: Вопросы экономики, №4.
  27. Соснов Ф. Г. 2011. Роль Франции в процессе инновационного развития Европейского Союза на современном этапе. – Ж.: Известия Тульского государственного университета. Экономические и юридические науки. №1-2. – Электронный ресурс: http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/rol-frantsii-v-protsesse-innovatsionnogo-razvitiya-evropeyskogo-soyuza-na-sovremennom-etape-1
  28. Справка о международном опыте инновационного развития, 2011. Министерство экономического развития Российской Федерации. Департамент координации, развития и регулирования внешнеэкономической деятельности. Электронный ресурс: http://economy.gov.ru/minec/about/structure/depsvod/doc20110407_02
  29. Структурная политика в России: новые условия и возможная повестка (Доклад НИУ ВШЭ). 2018. – Ж.: Вопросы экономики, №6. С. 5-28.
  30. Черноуцан Е. М., 2010. Полюса конкурентоспособности как инструмент реализации инновационной политики Франции в условиях глобализации. – В сб.: Глобальная трансформация инновационных систем. Под ред. Н.И.Ивановой, М., ИМЭМО РАН, 2010. – Электронный ресурс: http://www.imemo.ru/files/File/ru/publ/2010/10022.pdf