In what way is the launch of knowledge-based economy related to the urban development?

The chain of links between the innovation and technology cycle and urban development is very simple and consists of several sequential actions. Technology-based or innovation-based development of economy means the opening of new markets and emergence of new consumers. As a rule, these are large-scale transformations, primarily involving the core of these economic systems. Therefore, the markets are concentrated in the cities. Technological or innovative reconstruction is directly linked to the reconstruction of cities, i.e. their “cleanup” for the sake of new things, new people, new ideas and institutions. The whole history demonstrates direct links between the launch of the technology and innovation cycle and urban development.

Should one rely on cities or on regions only (developing the idea of an innovative region), when formulating a federal innovation policy?

Surely one can talk about innovative regions, but in fact we are referring to players in the innovation and technology markets and, of course, primarily to a cluster. The core of the cluster is, as a rule, the center of the market, i.e. a sufficiently large city. We can hardly imagine an innovation cluster localized in the hinterland (area adjacent to an industrial trade center or port). This is more likely to be a transformed “donut city” with an empty center, where all human activity – business and intellectual – spilled over to the periphery. Nevertheless, an innovative region equals an innovation cluster. Most clusters have a radius of 30−50 km. For instance, in Montreal the radius of the aerospace cluster is 30 km, in South California it is 50 km, the radius of the Boston biotech cluster is around 30−50 km. Most suppliers, subcontractors, innovation centers and labor markets are concentrated within this radius.

If it makes any sense to talk about an innovative region, then one should, of course, talk not about a subject of the Federation, not about continuous spaces, but about a cluster province. In any case urban situation is revolutionized.

In your point of view, why did the authors of the draft Strategy of the Innovative Development of the Russian Federation until 2020 choose not to place an emphasis on urban development (there is only an indicator “Elaboration of innovative development programs and strategies by cities with population over 1 mln people” in 2012)?

This is because we must acknowledge that so far we have been dealing with clusters within the analytical and not the organizational paradigm. We record, describe, and calculate coefficients. We approach clusters not from the standpoint of constructing technology added value chains and “assembling” and “soldering” a new management object. Thus, regions emerge in the management decision-making space. We are ready to accept them only as a kind of urban environment for the new type of employees, but not as a market and its peculiar organization. Though it is evident that new energy sector, for instance, will not emerge, if there will be no major change in the whole commercial network of our cities, in the type of construction or technology used. Healthcare industry is not so much about developing medical institutions. It is about complex reconstruction and transition to the so-called healthy cities. Information technologies constitute an intelligent city. But, first of all, these management objects in Russia are not yet set aside. Second, today clusters are approached within the analytical paradigm and not the management one, therefore all actions fail.

Who in the city is concerned with creation of the innovative environment?

Primarily those businesses that have a technology basis capable of “breaking into” the markets. Those who “live off” knowledge production and competence accumulation and trade in this knowledge are partially interested. For instance, universities, but only if they are entrepreneurial, unlike those universities that simply train people according to standard templates and do not even wish to change those templates. And finally, all those who have a low chance of using social elevators in the existing system, i.e. young people, are also interested in innovative development. This problem is an objective and, as a rule, a revolutionary one. For Russia and the rest of the world it means that “demographical clock” is turned upside down with older generation expanding and younger generation shrinking. Older generation is interested in stability and status quo, and in this situation one needs new motivation to push for innovative development. By the way Japan is one of the few developed industrial countries that entered this transition before Russia and could be an object of study and observation for us. Many problems that we are only starting to face have already been examined by Japan and it is somehow solving them.

What are the principal characteristics of the new generation of regional innovation strategies?

Let me cite the words of the representative of a global Russian company, an innovative and aggressive one, growing in pharmaceutics and biotech. He characterized urban development from the standpoint of what their company needed to settle in a city. He said that cities required four levels: local (urban), regional, national and global. Local level is needed for the people to live and prosper, for all their routine problems to be resolved, for them to live, set up production, build houses and factories etc. Regional level is needed for the innovation points to always be in the flow of labor force and have an opportunity to outsource, delegate, rely on partners. Thus, they need the very same cluster with a radius of 30−50 km that reduces transaction costs for them and creates competitive service supply. They need national level to be able to address a large country-size market, have governmental support, and be significant. Global level is needed for the people who are employed at their enterprise to understand the standards and understand that they are interacting with the global market and for them to have the skills and competences that will further develop production. If they do not have a global level, then business is doomed to be marginalized, become parochial and die.

That is why regional innovation programs have been absent in Russia so far. Tomsk attempts at somehow moving forward within one paradigm and Perm attempts at moving forward and discussing it within a different paradigm can both be regarded as an introduction, as an overture to the main theme. At this point there is no single real regional innovation program assembled in the form of complete management objects and accurate parameters, i.e. market shares that a region wants to capture, parameters of technological and human development. We are yet to learn to do that.

Photo source: “Expert” magazine