Управленец2218-50032686-792310.29141/2218-5003-2024-15-2-5MDMCNUhttps://upravlenets.usue.ru/ru/-2024/1562https://upravlenets.usue.ru/ru/-2024/1562Управление технологическим замещением: основные режимыTechnological substitution: The key control modesСухаревОлег СергеевичСухаревОлег СергеевичSukharevOleg S.o_sukharev@list.ruInstitute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow, Russia)Институт экономики Российской академии наук (г. Москва, РФ)0705202415266780707202329092023CC BY-NC 4.0

Одной из основных задач государственного управления на современном этапе развития России является обеспечение технологического суверенитета. Это невозможно осуществить, если не планировать и не проводить политику технологического обновления в различных видах экономической деятельности. Однако применяемые инструменты управления должны принимать во внимание текущий уровень технологичности. Статья посвящена определению режимов управления процессом технологического обновления с учетом принципов замещения и дополнения технологий. Методологию исследования составила теория технологических изменений. Методы работы включают таксономический и структурный анализ, обобщение статистических оценок. Информационной базой служат статистические данные Росстата за 2004–2021 гг. Указанный теоретико-методологический подход позволил выделить основные режимы и виды технологического обновления – замещения и дополнения, идентифицированные по инвестициям в новые и старые технологии. В результате исследования сформулированы их основные принципы. Предложены варианты государственной политики, работающей на повышение уровня экономики в зависимости от сложившегося в стране режима технологического обновления. Показано, что обнаруженный в российской экономике псевдоэффект технологического дуализма предполагает использование специальных инструментов, направленных на оптимизацию экономической структуры, чтобы увеличить инвестиции в новые технологии.

One of the primary goals of public administration in Russia is ensuring technological sovereignty which is hard to attain without proper planning and coherent technology modernization policy in different fields of economic activity. However, administration tools should allow for the current stage of technological development. The article aims to identify control modes of technology modernization considering the principles of substitution and addition. The foundation of research resides in technological change theory. The research methods applied are taxonomic and structural analysis, statistical generalization. Empirical evidence for 2004–2021 was retrieved from the Russian Federal State Statistics Service (Rosstat). This methodological approach has allowed establishing the key control modes and types of technology modernization – substitution and addition – according to investment in high or low technology, and formulating their central principles. The study also discusses the variants of state policy aiming to extend the country’s technological sovereignty based on the current mode of technological modernization. It is shown that the pseudo effect of technological dualism discovered in the Russian economy suggests utilising special tools designed to optimize the economic structure for boosting investment in new technologies.

режимы управления;технологический суверенитет;технологии;технологическое обновление;технологический дуализм;принцип замещения;структура экономики;инвестиции.control modes;technological sovereignty;technology;technology modernization;technological dualism;principle of substitution;structure of economy;investment.Глазьев С.Ю. (1993). Теория долгосрочного технико-экономического развития. Москва: Владар.Глазьев С.Ю. (2017). Семь сценариев для России // Стратегические приоритеты. № 1(13). С. 101–105.Нельсон Р., Уинтер С. (2000). Эволюционная теория экономических изменений. Москва: Финстатинформ.Перес К. (2011). Технологические революции и финансовый капитал. Динамика пузырей и периодов процветания. Москва: Дело.Сухарев О.С. (2019). Управление структурой технологического развития: риск и «процентный портфель» // Управленец. Т. 10, № 1. С. 2–15. https://doi.org/10.29141/2218-5003-2019-10-1-1Хейнман С.А. (2008). Эффективность национальной экономики: источники роста, потери и резервы. Москва: ИЭ РАН. Т. 1–2.Ahmad N., Youjin L., Žiković S., Belyaeva Zh. (2023). The effects of technological innovation on sustainable development and environmental degradation: Evidence from China. Technology in Society, vol. 72, 102184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.102184Amann E. (2002). Globalisation, industrial efficiency and technological sovereignty: Evidence from Brazil. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 875–888. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1062-9769(02)00144-8Bassens D., Hendrikse R. (2022). Asserting Europe’s technological sovereignty amid American platform finance: Countering financial sector dependence on Big Tech? Political Geography, vol. 97, 102648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2022.102648Chandio A.A., Sethi N., Dash D.P., Usman M. (2022). Towards sustainable food production: What role ICT and technological development can play for cereal production in Asian–7 countries? Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, vol. 202, 107368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2022.107368Chaturvedi T. (2023). How corporate development activities resolve the legitimacy-adaptation dilemma: A case study in technological substitution. Journal of Business Research, vol. 164, 113983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113983Crafts N. (2005). The First Industrial Revolution: Resolving the Slow Growth/Rapid Industrialization Paradox. Journal of the European Economic Association, vol. 3, no. 2/3, Papers and Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Congress of the European Economic Association (Apr. - May, 2005), pp. 525–534.Dattée B., Weil H.B. (2007). Dynamics of social factors in technological substitutions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 74, no. 5, pp. 579–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2007.03.003Edler J., Blind K., Kroll H., Schubert T. (2023). Technology sovereignty as an emerging frame for innovation policy. Defining rationales, ends and means. Research Policy, vol. 52, no. 6, 104765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104765Erebak S., Turgut T. (2021). Anxiety about the speed of technological development: Effects on job insecurity, time estimation, and automation level preference. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, vol. 32, no. 2, 100419. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.hitech.2021.100419Eum W., Lee J-D. (2022). The co-evolution of production and technological capabilities during industrial development. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, vol. 63, pp. 454–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2022.07.001Gabardo F.A., Pereima J.B., Einloft P. (2017). The incorporation of structural change into growth theory: A historical appraisal. EconomiA, vol, 18, no. 3, pp. 392–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econ.2017.05.003Hasan M.M., Du F. (2023). Nexus between green financial development, green technological innovation and environmental regulation in China. Renewable Energy, vol. 204, pp. 218–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.12.095Jiang H., Zhao Sh., Zhang S., Xu X. (2018). The adaptive mechanism between technology standardization and technology development: An empirical study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 135, pp. 241–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. techfore.2017.11.015Kamble S.S., Gunasekaran A., Gawankar S.A. (2018). Sustainable Industry 4.0 framework: A systematic literature review identifying the current trends and future perspectives. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, vol. 117, pp. 408–425. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2018.05.009Långstedt J., Spohr J., Hellström M. (2023). Are our values becoming more fit for artificial intelligence society? A longitudinal study of occupational values and occupational susceptibility to technological substitution. Technology in Society, vol. 72, 102205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102205Lu Y. (2017). Industry 4.0: A survey on technologies, applications and open research issues. Journal of Industrial Information Integration, vol. 6, pp. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jii.2017.04.005Magistretti S., Dell‘Era C., Verganti R. (2020). Searching for the right application: A technology development review and research agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 151, 119879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119879Ponte A., Leon G., Alvarez I. (2023). Technological sovereignty of the EU in advanced 5G mobile communications: An empirical approach. Telecommunications Policy, vol. 47, issue 1, 102459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2022.102459Romano L., Traù F. (2017). The nature of industrial development and the speed of structural change. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, vol. 42, pp. 26–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2017.05.003Sukharev O.S. (2018). Public administration: Institutions, resource transfer, jobs. Upravlenets / The Manager, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 11–25. https://doi.org/10.29141/2218-5003-2018-9-5-2Sukharev O.S. (2020). Portfolio theory in solving the problem structural choice. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, vol. 13, no. 9, 195. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm13090195Takashima N. (2023). Self-enforcing international environmental agreements with third-party organizations: Initial payment, technological development, and refunding. Economics Letters, vol. 228, 111164. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4386872Tinbergen J. (1967). Development planning. London: World University Library.Yan Zh., Sun Z., Shi R., Zhao M. (2023). Smart city and green development: Empirical evidence from the perspective of green technological innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 191, 122507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore. 2023.122507Wang M-Y., Lan W-T. (2007). Combined forecast process: Combining scenario analysis with the technological substitution model. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 74, issue 3, pp. 357–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2005.08.002Wu L., Chen W. (2023). Technological achievements in regional economic development: An econometrics analysis based on DEA. Heliyon, vol. 9, no. 6, e17023. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4335563Glazyev S.Yu. (1993). Theory of long-term technical and economic development. Moscow: Vladar. (in Russ.)Glazyev S.Yu. (2017). Seven scenarios for Russia. Strategicheskie prioritety / Strategic Priorities, no. 1(13), pp. 101–105. (in Russ.)Nelson R., Winter S. (2000). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Moscow: Finstatinform. (in Russ.)Peres K. (2011). Technological revolutions and financial capital. Dynamics of bubbles and periods of prosperity. Moscow: Delo. (in Russ.)Sukharev O.S. (2019). Managing the technological development structure: Risk and “interest portfolio”. Upravlenets / The Manager, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 2–15. https://doi.org/10.29141/2218-5003-2019-10-1-1. (in Russ.)Kheynman S.A. (2008). Efficiency of the national economy: Sources of growth, losses and reserves. Moscow: Institute of Economics of the RAS. Vol. 1–2. (in Russ.)Ahmad N., Youjin L., Žiković S., Belyaeva Zh. (2023). The effects of technological innovation on sustainable development and environmental degradation: Evidence from China. Technology in Society, vol. 72, 102184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.102184Amann E. (2002). Globalisation, industrial efficiency and technological sovereignty: Evidence from Brazil. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 875–888. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1062-9769(02)00144-8Bassens D., Hendrikse R. (2022). Asserting Europe’s technological sovereignty amid American platform finance: Countering financial sector dependence on Big Tech? Political Geography, vol. 97, 102648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2022.102648Chandio A.A., Sethi N., Dash D.P., Usman M. (2022). Towards sustainable food production: What role ICT and technological development can play for cereal production in Asian–7 countries? Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, vol. 202, 107368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2022.107368Chaturvedi T. (2023). How corporate development activities resolve the legitimacy-adaptation dilemma: A case study in technological substitution. Journal of Business Research, vol. 164, 113983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113983Crafts N. (2005). The First Industrial Revolution: Resolving the Slow Growth/Rapid Industrialization Paradox. Journal of the European Economic Association, vol. 3, no. 2/3, Papers and Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Congress of the European Economic Association (Apr. - May, 2005), pp. 525–534.Dattée B., Weil H.B. (2007). Dynamics of social factors in technological substitutions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 74, no. 5, pp. 579–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2007.03.003Edler J., Blind K., Kroll H., Schubert T. (2023). Technology sovereignty as an emerging frame for innovation policy. Defining rationales, ends and means. Research Policy, vol. 52, no. 6, 104765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104765Erebak S., Turgut T. (2021). Anxiety about the speed of technological development: Effects on job insecurity, time estimation, and automation level preference. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, vol. 32, no. 2, 100419. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.hitech.2021.100419Eum W., Lee J-D. (2022). The co-evolution of production and technological capabilities during industrial development. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, vol. 63, pp. 454–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2022.07.001Gabardo F.A., Pereima J.B., Einloft P. (2017). The incorporation of structural change into growth theory: A historical appraisal. EconomiA, vol, 18, no. 3, pp. 392–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econ.2017.05.003Hasan M.M., Du F. (2023). Nexus between green financial development, green technological innovation and environmental regulation in China. Renewable Energy, vol. 204, pp. 218–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.12.095Jiang H., Zhao Sh., Zhang S., Xu X. (2018). The adaptive mechanism between technology standardization and technology development: An empirical study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 135, pp. 241–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. techfore.2017.11.015Kamble S.S., Gunasekaran A., Gawankar S.A. (2018). Sustainable Industry 4.0 framework: A systematic literature review identifying the current trends and future perspectives. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, vol. 117, pp. 408–425. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2018.05.009Långstedt J., Spohr J., Hellström M. (2023). Are our values becoming more fit for artificial intelligence society? A longitudinal study of occupational values and occupational susceptibility to technological substitution. Technology in Society, vol. 72, 102205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102205Lu Y. (2017). Industry 4.0: A survey on technologies, applications and open research issues. Journal of Industrial Information Integration, vol. 6, pp. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jii.2017.04.005Magistretti S., Dell‘Era C., Verganti R. (2020). Searching for the right application: A technology development review and research agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 151, 119879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119879Ponte A., Leon G., Alvarez I. (2023). Technological sovereignty of the EU in advanced 5G mobile communications: An empirical approach. Telecommunications Policy, vol. 47, issue 1, 102459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2022.102459Romano L., Traù F. (2017). The nature of industrial development and the speed of structural change. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, vol. 42, pp. 26–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2017.05.003Sukharev O.S. (2018). Public administration: Institutions, resource transfer, jobs. Upravlenets / The Manager, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 11–25. https://doi.org/10.29141/2218-5003-2018-9-5-2Sukharev O.S. (2020). Portfolio theory in solving the problem structural choice. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, vol. 13, no. 9, 195. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm13090195Takashima N. (2023). Self-enforcing international environmental agreements with third-party organizations: Initial payment, technological development, and refunding. Economics Letters, vol. 228, 111164. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4386872Tinbergen J. (1967). Development planning. London: World University Library.Yan Zh., Sun Z., Shi R., Zhao M. (2023). Smart city and green development: Empirical evidence from the perspective of green technological innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 191, 122507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore. 2023.122507Wang M-Y., Lan W-T. (2007). Combined forecast process: Combining scenario analysis with the technological substitution model. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 74, issue 3, pp. 357–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2005.08.002Wu L., Chen W. (2023). Technological achievements in regional economic development: An econometrics analysis based on DEA. Heliyon, vol. 9, no. 6, e17023. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4335563