**2. Features of Russia's innovative clustering and its role in increasing the country's global competitiveness**

Expanding on the previous observations, the foreign experience of innovative development indicates that the success of implementing innovative programs strongly depends on the effectiveness of the institutional management of these programs. Therefore, developed countries are characterized by clarity, consistency, availability of infrastructure, a well-functioning management structure, and methodological, organizational, and legal documents that work as regulatory tools [1]. For these reasons, while monitoring the successes of the United States and other countries in 1999, the State Duma of the Russian Federation considered the draft law "On innovation activity and state innovation policy" [2].

After giving it some tests, the main principles of the policy of the Russian Federation in the field of scientific and technological development for 2010 were adopted with a further update until 2020. In the context of this document, the main directions, goals, objectives, implementation mechanisms, methods, and measures to stimulate the scientific, technical, and human capital activities of the policy in Russia were established. This policy was set to support the sustainable economic and innovative development of each region and the entire country. Such development of scientific and technical activities was aimed at solving the problems of socioeconomic and global progress, which were seen as the fundamental priorities for Russia after 2002 [3].

Until 2010, the second stage of the regulatory and legal delineation of innovation policy was supposed to organize a national system of innovation activity and finalize the global structure of the scientific and technological complex, but these goals were barely achieved. The effect of the successful implementation of these measures was to ensure the optimized functioning of the country in a market economy to maintain its competitive position in biological disciplines and high technologies worldwide [4].

Future redactions solidified the structure of cluster management at the regional level, which had a hierarchical direction of control over the network economy, as is shown in **Figure 1**. Over the years, this configuration of regulatory function was occasionally doubted, but it has yet to receive any substantial alteration or development.

From these normative strategies, new features were determined for the innovative work of the Russian Federation. It was assumed that at least half of the cluster

**Figure 1.** *Cluster management structure at the regional level of Russia. Source: [5].*

participants were members of the governing body that was to establish an agreement with more of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation to act as cluster management [3].

There should have been at least 10 industrial enterprises on the territory of one or more regions in Russia, at least 1 of which was to be engaged in producing finished products. In addition, when creating and developing a cluster, special attention was paid to the space exploration strategy of the Russian Federation and the plans for overall regional development, as well as the commercial interests of companies that were located on the same territory [3].

At least 5% of industrial products, materials, and components produced by each cluster member had to be used by other members in addition to the manufacturer of the final cluster product. Also, at least 20% of the total product of a cluster member was required to be used by other cluster members, or at least 20% of the total product of a cluster member that produces the end product was used by other cluster members. In addition, at least 50% of tasks in a cluster had to show high-performance indicators [3].

The infrastructure included at least one higher professional or secondary professional education institution and two technical or industrial infrastructure subjects. Thanks to these past and present conditions, the hierarchical structure for the global management of the subjects of innovation policy was constructed. Its ambition was to effectively connect the global and regional levels of management to tighten the connection between the institutions, as shown in **Figure 2**.

In the third stage of this policy—in 2016, the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia initiated a priority project called "Development of innovative clusters – leaders in first-class investment attractiveness" [6]. Its main tasks were to create pilot epicenters of rapid economic progress, innovative development, export of high-tech

*Policies for Improving the Efficiency of Innovative Clustering in an Emerging Market DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112150*

**Figure 2.** *Cluster management structure at the global level of Russia. Source: [5].*

products and commercialization of technologies, increase in labor productivity and creation of high-performance jobs, and reflective of the past wishes, the increase of national competitiveness.

The new initiative was built on early experiments to support industrial zones and clusters. However, in the new interpretation, new priority industrial areas were emphasized [6]. The year of initiation, the status of organizational development, information on the number of participants, and characteristics of the type of functioning of these pilot innovation clusters that were actively supported by the state program are presented in **Table 1**.

However, the fundamental limitations showed themselves shortly into the implementation process when establishing these policies. One of which was the unpreparedness of local managers for innovative work in scientific, technological, and economic fields. Conclusions based on data from the Russian Cluster Observatory and colorful descriptions of the administrative cons demonstrate that the Russian economy's current level of innovative development needs to correspond to the goals and objectives of the national strategy for innovative development and its forecasts. The main reasons for this situation are the need for more effectiveness and the nonexistence of consumer orientation in the organizational mechanism of corporate innovation, the culture of which needs to be considered in the national innovation policy [7].

Accordingly, other disadvantages can be observed in the strategic concept of moderate growth of innovation in Russian policy. The lack of proper access to state statistics on the goals of managing innovative development and the delay of any statistical data should also be noted as a con. In addition, the structure of statistical indicators only partially corresponds to the tasks of the current day, which, in the absence of a detailed description of practical measures for the implementation of



#### **Table 1.**

*Authors' overview of the pilot and main innovation clusters in Russia.*
