Kutsenko tci2017 eng v.2
-
Upload
evgeny-kutsenko -
Category
Presentations & Public Speaking
-
view
49 -
download
0
Transcript of Kutsenko tci2017 eng v.2
20th TCI 201Global conference "The Future of Clusters Through Cross-‐Country and Cross-‐region Collabora7on“. 7-‐9 November 2017
Modern industrial policy toolkit: insights from the Russian cluster
policy experience
Evgeniy Kutsenko
Head of the Russian cluster observatory
Na7onal Research University -‐ Higher School of Economics
1. Na&onal policy has had a significant impact on the emergence of cluster ini&a&ves and their performance. Evidence from the pilot innova&ve clusters (PIC) program
0,42
0,85
0
0,5
1
Average number of new CI
located in non-‐PIC home regions
located in PIC home regions
In the regions of the state supported clusters (PICs) new cluster ini7a7ves were created on average twice as intensively as in the other regions.
3
7
58
0
50
100
The share of CI with medium or high level of ins&tu&onal development
non-‐PICs, % PICs, %
Average employment in the clusters supported by the state subsidy was 3 &mes higher than in the clusters with private funding only
1 2 The share of PICs with high and medium level of ins7tu7onal development is 8.29 &mes higher than the respec7ve share of non-‐PICs
4 18 of 65 CI which had lost the contest con&nued func&oning, despite the lack of state support
40% of the German cluster ini7a7ves with rejected applica7ons for InnoRegio programme contest s7ll exist and implement their projects (Eickelpasch and Fritsch, 2005).
lost the PICs compe77on, but survived
lost the PICs compe77on and vanished
28%
7,8
23,8
0
10
20
30
Average No. of employees in CI
non-‐PICs, K people PICs, K people
2. Specific support programmes can address different challenges and industries / sectors (manufacturing-‐based, science-‐based, SME-‐based clusters)
Boost compe77veness of SMEs in tradi7onal industries such as food, wood processing, furniture, jewelry and so on. Financing of collabora7ve projects -‐ is one of the important instruments.
27 pilot innova7ve clusters located in 28 Russian regions were selected for subsidizing with the total funds exceeding € 90 m in 2013-‐2015.
12 Russian regions host 12 innova7ve clusters, which were assigned the status of investment a_rac7veness leaders on a global scale.
34 clusters development centres located in 33 Russian regions were subsidized with the total funds of € 19.4 m in 2010-‐2016.
22 industrial clusters are located in 20 Russian regions. The total subsidy to support 8 cluster projects is expected to be € 27 m in 2013-‐2015.
Provide comprehensive approach to support of new and emerging industries, such as IT, biotechnology, advanced materials, etc. It's crucial to build a proper ecosystem around them; define key regions, their ro les , enhance cross-‐regional coopera7on
Map of na7onally-‐supported clusters and cluster development centres in Russia
Revitalize the old industrial agg lomera7ons: aerospace, automo7ve, nuclear sectors, petrochemical and chemical industries. Value chains extension and diversifica7on to the new markets are needed.
Challenge 1 Challenge 2
Challenge 3
3. Policy tradi&ons employed by different ministries is more influen&al for support programmes design than country or cluster features
Criteria Innova&ve Clusters (Ministry of Economic Development, 2012)
Industrial Clusters (Ministry of Industry and Trade, 2015)
Key support goals § Export volumes increase § A_rac7on of investments
§ Enhance industrial coopera7on § Import subs7tu7on
Sectorial and spa&al orienta&on
§ No restric7on to sectors of ac7vity (in fact, biopharmaceu7cs, IT, aerospace, petro-‐chemistry, and machinery)
§ Single region or neighboring regions
§ Manufacturing § Cases of clusters with members in the regions
remoted from each other
Support provision principles, and support addressee
§ Advance co-‐funding § Regional authori7es
§ Compensa7ons of ex-‐post expenses § Industrial enterprises
Support focus
§ Synthe7c cluster programmes (a set of projects fulfilled by various cluster members)
§ Joint projects fulfilled by two or more cluster members (there is, at least, one clusters member who invests in a new product that is planned to be purchased by the other clusters member)
Cluster management organiza&on as a na&onal support addressee
§ Supported from the federal funds inter alia § Not supported (they are financed either by cluster members, or regional authori7es)
Cluster selec&on approach
§ One-‐7me compe77on, cluster short-‐list upda7ng unformalized
§ Cluster short-‐list is made up on a applica7ve and con7nuing basis
Funding &me-‐frame § One year § Annual compe77on of applica7ons among clusters
from a closed short-‐list
§ A contract between Ministry of Industry and Trade and cluster project ini7ator for a 5-‐year period maximum
4. Regions can vary greatly in terms of cluster poten&al (quan&ty and strength of sta&s&cal clusters), which is not always considered by policy-‐makers
42 41
40
38 37
35 34
33
28 28 27
26
24 23 23
22 21 21
20
17 16 16
15 15 15 15 14 14 14
13 12 12 12 12 12
11 11 11 11 11 11 10 10 10 10
9 9 8
7 7 7 6 6 6
5 5 4 4 4 4
3 3 3 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
City of St. Pe
tersbu
rg
City of M
oscow
Moscow Region
Repu
blic of T
atarstan
Sverdlovsk Region
Rostov Region
Repu
blic of B
ashkortostan
Nizh
ny Novgorod Re
gion
Pe
rm Region
Samara Re
gion
Tyum
en Region
Chelyabinsk Re
gion
Krasno
yarsk Re
gion
Vladim
ir Re
gion
Krasno
dar R
egion
Leningrad Re
gion
Irk
utsk Region
Novosibirsk Re
gion
Saratov Re
gion
Vo
rone
zh Region
Tula Region
Kemerovo Re
gion
Kirov Re
gion
Prim
orsky Re
gion
Yarosla
vl Region
Tver Region
Kaluga Region
Briansk Re
gion
Re
public of U
dmur7a
Vo
lgograd Re
gion
Sm
olen
sk Region
Stavropo
l Region
Khabarovsk Region
Repu
blic of Sakha (Y
aku7
a)
Vologda Re
gion
Orenb
urg Re
gion
Ch
uvash Re
public
Ulyanovsk Region
Penza Re
gion
Omsk Region
Arkhangelsk
Region
Altai Region
Belgorod
Region
Kursk Re
gion
Re
public of K
omi
Ryazan Region
Tomsk Region
Repu
blic of M
ordo
via
Murmansk Region
Tambo
v Re
gion
Novgorod Re
gion
Astrakhan Re
gion
Mari El Rep
ublic
Lipe
tsk Re
gion
Zabaikalsky Re
gion
Ko
stroma Re
gion
Am
ur Region
Ivanovo Re
gion
Re
public of K
arelia
Pskov Re
gion
Re
public of B
urya7a
Kaliningrad Region
Repu
blic of D
agestan
Kurgan Region
Orel Region
Repu
blic of K
abardino
-‐Balkaria
Kamchatka Region
Magadan Region
Repu
blic of Severnaya Ose7ya-‐Alaniya
Sakhalin Region
Cheche
n Re
public
Karachay-‐Che
rkessia
Rep
ublic
Jewish
Auton
omou
s Region
Repu
blic of A
dygea
Repu
blic of A
ltai
Ingush Rep
ublic
Repu
blic of K
almykia
Repu
blic of T
yva
Repu
blic of K
hakassia
Chukotka Auton
omou
s Area
Number of strong clusters (at least 1 star)
Number of clusters with cluster ini7a7ves
Number of strong clusters (at least 1 star) with cluster ini7a7ves
Regions with ci7es of more than 1 mln dwellers
5
Cluster mapping helps to specify the policy. The case of Water transporta&on in Russia: s&ll great poten&al for cluster ini&a&ves and cross-‐regional coopera&on
Shipbuilding cluster (Astrakhan region) Shipbuilding and
aircraft pilot innovative cluster of Khabarovsk
region
St. Petersburg Composites cluster
Shipbuilding pilot innovative cluster of Arkhangelsk region
- Cluster initiatives (CI) - Strong clusters (at least one star by the ECO methodology) - CI, supported by the Ministry of Economy
-‐ High (4 or 3 stars) -‐ Medium (2) -‐ Basic (1)
Cluster strength
6
5. The intensity and validity of cluster policy varies greatly in different sectors. Russia priori&zes hi-‐tech and manufacturing
3 2 0,2
9
3
2
8 18
15 19
0
5
10
15
20
25 Valid and full-‐scale cluster policy
Unfocused cluster policy
Feasible cluster policy with room for progress
No cluster policy
Average nu
mbe
r of clusters a
nd cluster ini7a7
ves
7
Number of strong clusters (at least 1 star)
Number of clusters with cluster ini7a7ves
Number of strong clusters (at least 1 star) with cluster ini7a7ves
4 industries: § Biopharmaceu7cals § Aerospace Vehicles and Defence
§ Informa7on Technology and Analy7cal Instruments
§ Automo7ve
21 industries: § Upstream Metal Manufacturing § Upstream Chemical Products § Plas7cs § Construc7on Products and Services § Food Processing and Manufacturing § Downstream Metal Products § Agricultural Inputs and Services § Furniture § Downstream Chemical Products § Tex7le Manufacturing
10 industries: § Livestock Processing § Paper and Packaging § Oil and Gas Produc7on and Transporta7on § Jewellery and Precious Metals § Coal Mining § …
16 industries: § Music and Sound Recording § Performing Arts § Video Produc7on and Distribu7on
§ Marke7ng, Design, and Publishing
§ Distribu7on and Electronic Commerce
§ Financial Services § Insurance Services § Apparel § …
Hi-‐tech Manufacturing and agriculture
Tradi7onal and primary industries
KIBS, crea7ve and cultural industries
Ideas for industrial policy
1. Posi7ve effects of cluster policy such as the increase of new cluster ini7a7ves (out of the supported ones) suggest the importance of long-‐standing cluster support programs. Not only alloca7on of funds, but also legi7ma7on of relevant regional clustering ini7a7ves and policies
2. Several specific support programmes can turn to be more effec7ve, than a holis7c one, which “addresses all the issues of all clusters”. Specific cluster programs with different design depending on par7cular industry (50+ according to Porter and ECO) / group of industries?
3. Policy tradi7ons employed by different ministries is more influen7al for support programmes design than country or cluster features. Openness between different ministries and mutual learning is crucial to overcome possible path dependencies of current policy tradi7ons
4. Cluster mapping is worth even greater considera7on. Regional experimenta7on in industrial policy need not be limited; it is the risks distribu7on that need to be op7mized (the less clustering poten7al is feasible, the more private or/and regional co-‐investment is required). Basis for enhancing interregional collabora7on between CI
5. Services (including KIBS), crea7ve and cultural industries can be underes7mated as full-‐fledged regional development priori7es and cluster policy addressee. (BUT: cluster policy efficiency could be industry-‐related)
8