Cluster policy in Russia:
on the way to economic diversification?
Igor V. Pilipenko
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Department Geography of the World Economy
2008 AAG Annual Meeting
April 15-19, 2008, Boston, MA
Сluster policy – definition (I)
 A new way of microeconomic policy implementation
involving government, business, educational and scientific
community.
(discussed by Sölvell, Lindqvist, Ketels, 2003; Andersson, Hansson, Serger, Sölvik, 2004)
 Clusters are new policy objects – 2 general types of
clusters:
• Non-spatial clusters (industrial, national) – a group of interrelated, adjacent industries and services that successfully
specialise in the international division of labour;
• Spatial clusters (regional, local, transborder) – groups of
geographically concentrated enterprises in regions or
localities from adjacent industries and services, which produce
similar or inter-supplemental goods and services using mostly
external economies of scale (local division of labour, local pool
of labour force, innovation diffusion).
April 16, 2008
Igor V. Pilipenko
Lomonosov Moscow State University
2
Сluster policy – definition (II)
 Cluster policy involves tools from other
policies or is a part of other policies at a
regional/local level:
• tax incentives,
• regional branding (Standort-Marketing),
• FDI attraction, etc.
 Cluster policy genesis:
(discussed by Ffowcs-Williams, 2004)
• Top-down policy (initiated from government);
• Bottom-up policy (started by business
community);
• Mixed policies (both parties initiate cluster policy).
April 16, 2008
Igor V. Pilipenko
Lomonosov Moscow State University
3
Possible cluster policy targets
in the Russian economy:
1.
Stimulation of competition and exports
diversification;
2.
Fostering studies of firm development at the
regional/local level and elaboration of specially
focused programs;
3.
Creation of favorable environment for SMEs
development;
4.
Strengthening cooperation between government,
business, educational and scientific communities.
April 16, 2008
Igor V. Pilipenko
Lomonosov Moscow State University
4
Competition in the Russian economy
World Bank/HSE survey 2005/2006 ~ 1,000 enterprises
 no competition – 20%:
• max – wood processing 31%,
• min – textile manufacturing 12%.
 competition with only domestic enterprises – 30%:
• max – food processing 42%,
• min – chemicals 17%.
 competition with only foreign enterprises – 13%:
• max – textile manufacturing 25%,
• min – food processing 5%.
 competition with both types of enterprises – 37%:
• max – chemicals 53%,
• min – automotive industry 26%.
April 16, 2008
Igor V. Pilipenko
Lomonosov Moscow State University
5
Russia’s exports diversification
 The share of 10 leading export products in total
exports (INTRACEN) has increased from 76 to 79%
in 2001-2005;
 The share of “mineral products” group (according
to Rosstat’s definition) has increased from 53.8 to
65.9%;
 The share of “vehicles and its parts” group
(Rosstat) decreased from 8.8 to 5.8%.
April 16, 2008
Igor V. Pilipenko
Lomonosov Moscow State University
6
Microeconomic approach
and regional development (I)
 Regional policies despite Russia’s vast territories have
been surprisingly considered of second priority after
macroeconomic stability;
 Ca. 11 versions of “The Concept of regional
development in Russia” were elaborated; the last
proposed version was approved by the Government in
2005;
 The role of regional development topics in the current
strategic planning:
• “The Concept of Social-Economic Development of the Russian
Economy until 2020” (the version of October 2007) – 15 pages
about regional development (171 pages in total);
• “The Concept 2020” in March 2008 – 28 pages about regional
development from 165 pages in total).
April 16, 2008
Igor V. Pilipenko
Lomonosov Moscow State University
7
Microeconomic approach
and regional development (II)
Overall productivity in Federal districts, 2000 and 2004
Southern FD
4438
2010
Volga FD
2826
Siberian FD
2914
5996
6873
Far-Eastern FD
3534
Russia, average
3442
North-Western FD
3298
Central FD
7538
7884
7905
9055
4135
Ural FD
15524
5856
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
Overall productivity, GDP per person employed
2000
2004
The productivity difference between Ural FD and Southern FD:
2000 – 2.9 times; 2004 – 3.5 times.
April 16, 2008
Igor V. Pilipenko
Lomonosov Moscow State University
8
Microeconomic approach
and regional development (III)
 The range between regions with highest and lowest
overall productivity (GDP per person employed):
2000
21,485
925
23
Nenets AO
Rep. Dagestan
Range (times)
2004
Nenets AO
56,012
Rep. Adygeya 3,102
Range (times) 18
 The range between 10 regions with highest and lowest
overall productivity (GDP per person employed):
10 leading regions
10 lagging regions
Range (times)
April 16, 2008
2000
10,445
1311
7.9
2004
10 leading regions 26,577
10 lagging regions 3,266
Range (times)
8.1
Igor V. Pilipenko
Lomonosov Moscow State University
9
Microeconomic approach
and regional development (IV)
Regional productivity distribution, 2004
GDP per person employed
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
Nenets AD  56,012
Khanty  Mansi AD  52,554
Yamal  Nenets AD  42,377
Tyumen' oblast '  36,519
Moscow  16,327
X  7,884
St.Petersburg  7,730
Me  5,375
10000
0
regions
April 16, 2008
Igor V. Pilipenko
Lomonosov Moscow State University
10
SMEs definition in Russia
 Prior to 2007 no definition of SMEs in statistics;
 Since 1995 - definition of small enterprises:
 No. of employees varied between 30 and 100 depending on
industry,
 Government/religious organizations’ share < 25%
 Self-employment is included.
 Since January 1, 2008 – definition of SMEs:




Medium-sized – less than 250 employees,
Small – less than 100 employees,
Micro-enterprises – less than 10 employees.
Self-employment is included.
 In 1980 in USSR an average employment in manufacturing was
ca. 330 employees (Baklanov, 1986).
 In 2005 in Russia an average employment in the whole
economy was less than 15 employees (Rosstat).
April 16, 2008
Igor V. Pilipenko
Lomonosov Moscow State University
11
Small business (SB) demography in Russia
employment – 17.8% (2006);
national value-added – 11.8% (2004).
 SB distribution by industry, as of January 1, 2007:
 SB share in:
April 16, 2008
Igor V. Pilipenko
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Source:
Ministry of
Economic
Development
and Trade
12
The model of spatial interaction between
government, SMEs, large enterprises, education
and scientific institutions within a regional
innovation system
A region
Implementation of a regional innovative policy
Creation of
knowledge in
educational and
scientific institutions
Implementation of
innovations in
technology, science
parks, etc.
innovations
Innovative production
in clusters of
small and medium
enterprisers
goods
Influence of
TNCs
A transnational
corporation
April 16, 2008
Influence of
TNCs
Value-added
chain
Igor V. Pilipenko
Lomonosov Moscow State University
A transnational
corporation
13
Challenges for cluster policy
implementation in Russia
 Notions “cluster” and “cluster policy” are
often incorrectly interpreted;
 No final goals settings (i.e. raising
productivity, exports, creation of new jobs);
 No drivers of SMEs competitiveness
identified (external economies of scale, etc.);
 Confusion of notions –
cluster vs. territorial-production complex (often
in regional development strategies);
cluster vs. technology park or industrial
districts;
April 16, 2008
Igor V. Pilipenko
Lomonosov Moscow State University
14
Development of the theory of
territorial-production complexes (TPCs)
 1920s – Creation of theory of economic region
economic region = TPC
 1950s – Creation theory of energy-production cycles
as basis of TPCs
 1970s-1980s – Paradigm “Shift to East”, practical
spatial application of TPC models in Eastern regions
of USSR
 Late 1970s-1980s – Application of TPC models in
developing nations and countries of Central and
Eastern Europe
April 16, 2008
Igor V. Pilipenko
Lomonosov Moscow State University
15
Main territorial-production complexes in Russia,
since 1980s
Timan-Pechora
North-Tyumen’
West-Yakut
Noril’sk
South-Yakut
Lower Angara
Kursk Magnetic
Anomaly
Bratsk-Ust’-Ilimsk
Middle-Ob’
Irkutsk-Cheremkhovo
Kuzbass
Krasnoyarsk
Sayany
April 16, 2008
10 Siberian TPCs accounted in 2006 for 17% in
country’s
manufacturing and 25% in national exports
Igor V. Pilipenko
16
(Bezrukov,
2006)
Lomonosov Moscow State University
The classification of spatial forms of
R&D and production organization
Prevailed size
of enterprises
Type of creation
Small and medium
enterprises
Ib
Small, medium,
and large
enterprises
II b
Medium and
large
enterprises
III b
Large
enterprises
IV b
Developed
themselves /
localization
economies
Ia
- Marshallian
industrial district
- Italian industrial
district
- Regional cluster
- Local cluster
- Hub-and-spoke
industrial district
- State-anchored
industrial district
- Regional cluster
- Satellite
platform district
- Vertically
integrated
industrial
plants (often in
old industrial
regions)
Created artificially
by state
authorities
- Technology park
- Science park
- Business
innovation centre
- Innovation
technological
centre
- Technopolis
- Territorialproduction
complex
- Territorialproduction
complex
- Territorialproduction
complex
II a
April 16, 2008
Igor V. Pilipenko
Lomonosov Moscow State University
17
Four directions of cluster policy
towards four various objects:
 Non-spatial clusters – already exist and can be easily
identified: oil&gas industries, metallurgy, military
complex, aerospace industry;
 Territorial-production complexes – already exist (the
plants are mostly private-owned) or were planned in
USSR;
 Spatial clusters – possible emerging within
agglomerations with scientific and basic
infrastructure in new industries developing since 1991
with a larger share of SMEs – ICT, services, new
construction materials, consumer-oriented industries;
 Cluster initiatives – some examples. i.e. in automotive
industry are found.
April 16, 2008
Igor V. Pilipenko
Lomonosov Moscow State University
18
Cluster policy direction 1:
non-spatial clusters
 Responsibility: federal government;
 Type of policy: creation of a favorable and
innovation-stimulative framework, promotion of
cluster companies abroad; raising educational
and technological standards;
 Form of realization: mostly lawmaking;
 Theoretical background: the schools of the
competitiveness theory.
April 16, 2008
Igor V. Pilipenko
Lomonosov Moscow State University
19
The analysis of the competitiveness
theory creation
The problem of national competitiveness
The theory of
international trade
The location theory
The human capital theory
We analyzed ca. 40 theories and concepts
elaborated by scholars from 10 nations
April 16, 2008
Igor V. Pilipenko
Lomonosov Moscow State University
20
We identify three main schools of the
competitiveness theory:
1. The American School – M. Porter, M. Enright, et.al.
The most practically-oriented school: the diamond of
competitive advantages, industrial and regional clusters
2. The British School - J. Dunning, R. Kaplinsky, J.
Humphrey, H. Schmitz, C. Freeman et.al.
Division of labour between developed and developing
countries: value-added chains, clusters, transnational
corporations, techno-economic paradigm
3. The Scandinavian School - B.-A. Lundvall,
B. Johnson, B. Asheim, A. Isaksen, E. Reinert et.al.
The social-economic school: national systems of innovation,
regional innovation systems, the learning economy, learning
region, types of knowledge
April 16, 2008
Igor V. Pilipenko
Lomonosov Moscow State University
21
First steps in cluster policy realization
towards non-spatial clusters
 Creation of large government-owned enterprises in
highly monopolized industries in the world economy:
 “OAO United Aircraft Corporation” (11 enterprises)
in 2006;
 “OAO United Shipbuilding Corporation” in 2007;
 Creation of State Corporations (as legal entities –
nonprofit organizations) in 2007:
 Russian Corporation of Nanotechnologies;
 Russian Technologies;
 ROSATOM;
 etc.
April 16, 2008
Igor V. Pilipenko
Lomonosov Moscow State University
22
Cluster policy direction 2:
territorial-production complexes
 Responsibility:
 federal government – strategic planning;
 regional government – project realization.
 Type of policy: creation of new TPCs,
diversification of already existed TPC, realization
of infrastructure projects;
 Form of realization: mostly public-private
partnership;
 Theoretical background: TPC-approach.
April 16, 2008
Igor V. Pilipenko
Lomonosov Moscow State University
23
Cluster policy direction 3:
spatial clusters
 Responsibility depending on cluster size:
 regional government;
 local government.
 Type of policy: creation of firm networks, broker
policy, regional branding, educational and
training programs, diversification of demand,
creation of favorable conditions;
 Form of realization: public-private partnership,
lawmaking, promotion of cluster companies
abroad, exhibitions;
 Theoretical background: the schools of the
competitiveness theory.
April 16, 2008
Igor V. Pilipenko
Lomonosov Moscow State University
24
Location of Novosibirsk
April 16, 2008
Igor V. Pilipenko
Lomonosov Moscow State University
25
Local ICT-cluster in Novosibirsk
Year of formation – 1992
Number of firms – over 20 from total 150 enterprises
Number of employees – ca. 2,000
Turnover of cluster firms – over $30 mln (2003)
Specialization – offshore programming, software production, consulting
and OEM
In larger scientific centres as
Moscow (over 70 ICT-enterprises) and St.-Petersburg (over 50
ICT-enterprises) – also potential ICT-clusters
April 16, 2008
Igor V. Pilipenko
Lomonosov Moscow State University
26
Main characteristics of a local cluster
in Novosibirsk:
• Cluster firms:
– are from one industry;
– are geographically concentrated;
– have close contacts with research institutes from the
Scientific city of Novosibirsk (Naukograd);
– have close contacts with Novosibirsk State University;
– have close contacts with Novosibirsk Technology Park.
• Intensive information and know-how exchange
between firms and their personnel;
• Decision-making centre was in this cluster – the
leading firm “Novosoft”.
April 16, 2008
Igor V. Pilipenko
Lomonosov Moscow State University
27
Cluster policy direction 4:
cluster initiatives
 Responsibility: mainly local governments;
 Type of policy: creation of firm networks,
deepening cooperation between government,
enterprises and academia, broker policy, regional
branding, educational programs, diversification
of demand, creation of favorable conditions;
 Form of realization: public-private partnership,
promotion of cluster companies abroad,
exhibitions;
 Theoretical background: the schools of the
competitiveness theory.
April 16, 2008
Igor V. Pilipenko
Lomonosov Moscow State University
28
Thank you!
Igor V. Pilipenko
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Department Geography of the World Economy
igor_pilipenko@yahoo.com
www.i-pilipenko.narod.ru