SHIFTING THE GEOGRAPHICAL CENTER OF THE WORLD’S NANOINDUSTRY

Aim. We analyze the displacement of the geographical center of the global nanoindustry in 2000-2020 and determine the role of individual countries in the formation of the industry. Methodology. The study offers an interpretation of the main provisions of the theory of diffusion of innovations in modern conditions. As an example, the nanoindustry is considered as one of the branches of the Sixth Kondratiev cycle. To determine the external and internal factors of the industry development, the Pearson and Spearman indices were calculated, which showed a high degree of correlation between the development of the industry and the dynamics of investments in R&D, the number of operating specialized research centers of the nanoindustry and a lower dependence on the number of people employed in the industry and related R&D. The role of countries in the development of the global nanoindustry during the period under review is reflected not only statistically, but also through the definition of the world center of the nanoindustry using the centrographic method. Results. The development of the nanoindustry in the world is considered as a sequence of three stages: the global development of publication activity, the global development of patent activity, and the global development of nanoindustry productions. In the field of nanoindustry, various global spatial systems have been identified at different stages: polycentrism of ideas and monocentrism of patents. Polycentrism of ideas is a manifestation of the globalization of the market and scientific theories. The monocentrism of patents is a natural consequence of the legal and material provision of new technologies and researchers with the necessary resources. Over time, the designated territorial systems at the global level are out of balance and transformed into opposite ones. The development of nanoindustry within a particular country or territory is explained by the synergetic effect of a combination of several established factors: the number of research organizations, funding, migration of highly qualified personnel, interaction of researchers with business, openness of the local community, etc. Using the entire array of data on the development of the nanoindustry in the world, a classification of countries into the Center, Semi-Periphery and Periphery of the global nanoindustry is proposed. Research implications. The study reflects the features of the spatial organization of innovative industries and a special case of the geography of the nanoindustry. The identification of geographical patterns in the distribution of innovation potential and the existing centers of the global nanoindustry makes it possible to qualitatively assess the place of high-tech developers from individual countries, in particular the leading countries, on the world stage. This research is aimed at forming a long-term strategy for the development of the Russian nanoindustry based on world experience and taking into account global trends in the development of the industry.

nanoindustry, diffusion of innovations, geography of nanoindustry

1. Аузан А. А. Институциональная экономика. Новая институциональная экономическая теория. М.: Инфра-М, 2010. 416 с.

2. Бабурин В. Л. Влияние географической специфики распространения инновационных волн на территориальную организацию общества // Вестник Московского университета. Серия 5. География. 1999. № 1. С. 42-46.

3. Баринова В. А. Институциональные условия инновационного развития фирмы. М.: Издательский дом «Дело», 2012. 154 с.

4. География мирового развития : сборник научных трудов / под ред. Л. М. Синцерова. Вып. 3. М.: Товарищество научных изданий КМК, 2016. 486 с.

5. Гохберг Л. М., Кузнецова И. А. Анализ и перспективы статистического исследования инновационной деятельности в экономике России // Вопросы статистики. 2004. № 9. С. 3-15.

6. Лавров Н. А. Диффузия знания в России на примере развития наноиндустрии // Географическая среда и живые системы. 2020. № 2. С. 78-88.

7. Лопатников Д. Л. Миграция мирового центра экологического неблагополучия и «геоэкологический переход» // Известия Российской академии наук. Серия географическая. 2020. № 5. С. 728-736.

8. Пилипенко И. В. Конкурентоспособность стран и регионов в мировом хозяйстве: теория, опыт малых сан Западной и Северной Европы. Смоленск: Ойкумена, 2005. 496 с.

9. Шумпетер Й. Теория экономического развития. М.: Прогресс, 1982. 455 с.

10. Bititci U. S. An Executive’s Guide to Business Transformation // Business Strategy Series. 2007. № 8. P. 203-213.

11. Brenner T., Broekel T. Methodological issues in measuring innovation performance of spatial units // Industry and Innovation. 2011. № 18 (1). P. 7-37.

12. Innovation systems: analytical and methodological issues / B. Carlsson, S. Jacobsson, M. Holmйn, A. Rickne // Research policy. 2002. № 31 (2). P. 233-245.

13. Small firms, R&D, technology and innovation in the UK: a literature review / K. Hoffman, M. Parejo, J. Bessant, L. Perren // Technovation. 1998. № 18 (1). P. 39-55.

14. Kapas J. Industrial Revolutions and the Evolution of Fifrm Organisation // Journal of Innovation Economics. 2008. № 2. P. 15-33.

15. Krugman P. A model of innovation, technology transfer, and the world distribution of income // Journal of Political Economy. 1987. Vol. 87. P. 253-266.

16. Linder J. C., Cole M. I., et al. Business Transformation through Outsourcing // Strategy & Leadership. 2002. № 30 (4). P. 23-28.

17. Patel P., Pavitt K. National innovation systems: why they are important, and how they might be measured and compared // Economics of innovation and new technology. 1994. № 3 (1). P. 77-95.

18. Porter M. The economic performance of regions // Regional studies. 2003. № 37 (6-7). P. 545-546.

19. Sternberg R., Arndt O. The firm or the region: what determines the innovation behavior of European firms? // Economic Geography. 2001. № 77 (4). P. 364-382.

20. Wu Y., Popp D., Bretschneider S. The effects of innovation policies on business R&D: A cross-national empirical study // Economics of Innovation and New Technology. 2007. № 16 (4). P. 237-253.