Researchers at the Gaidar Institute’s Industrial Organization and Infrastructure Economics Department analyzed how technological development affects economic growth in Russian regions and concluded that there was no universal approach to supporting innovation. The same tools can accelerate development in one region and have almost no effect in another. The study’s findings demonstrate that Russia’s technology policy must account for the specific characteristics of individual regions—ranging from the level of scientific and infrastructure development to access to markets and human capital.
Today, state support for technological development in Russia is concentrated in national projects and state programs. However, most measures are still poorly aligned with regional specifics. Support is prioritized mainly according to geographical or political principles, for example, for specific territories or infrastructure projects. At the same time, global experience shows that the effectiveness of innovation policy directly depends on how well it is adapted to the region’s specific characteristics.
Experts at the Gaidar Institute analyzed data from Russian regions, including indicators of innovation activity, scientific research, infrastructure, international trade, and the level of economic development. The analysis revealed several important patterns.
It turned out that so-called “special-purpose technologies”—highly specialized solutions for specific industries—are particularly important for technologically less developed regions. Examples include medical nanotechnologies or robotic systems for emergency response. In regions with low innovation activity, an increase in the number of such technologies from the minimum to the maximum level within the study group was associated with a nearly 9% rise in per capita GRP growth rates.
According to the researchers, this is precisely why industrial robotics centers, testing laboratories, design offices for machine tool development, and other specialized technology hubs are particularly beneficial for such regions. This approach may be more effective than attempts to develop all areas of innovation simultaneously.
The situation is quite different in technologically advanced regions. There, the level of technological development is already quite high, and further increases in innovation activity have almost no effect on economic growth rates. Access to large markets—including international ones—becomes the key factor. For such regions, what matters more than additional subsidies is expanding exports, fostering international cooperation, and promoting free trade.
The study also showed that human capital plays an important role. In regions with an average level of scientific workforce training, new technologies have a more noticeable impact on the economy than in regions with a low level of specialist training. At the same time, simply increasing the number of graduate students does not guarantee accelerated growth—the quality of education and the ability to transform scientific research into real-world developments and technologies are crucial.
Infrastructure emerged as another significant factor. Regions with a developed digital and communications network derive greater economic benefits from the adoption of new technologies. In areas with weak infrastructure, it is necessary to establish basic conditions—improving communications, transportation, and internet access—and then scale up innovative projects.