A. V. FROLOV

Candidate of Economic Sciences, Faculty of Economics, Lomonosov Moscow State University

Key words: Singapore, USA, innovation economy, national innovation system

In September 2011, the second meeting of the high-level intergovernmental Russian-Singapore commission was held in Moscow. It was attended by Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation Vladimir Volodin and Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Finance and Labor of Singapore T. Shanmugaratnam.

During the meeting of the commission, issues of trade and economic cooperation, cooperation in the innovation sphere, intensification of ties in the field of investment, information technology, culture and tourism were discussed. Special attention was paid to expanding ties in the scientific and technical sphere and education. New areas of bilateral cooperation, primarily in the field of modernization, have been agreed upon. The policy is aimed at supporting business-oriented projects, primarily in the field of creating and managing special economic zones in the Russian Federation, agro-industrial clusters, and healthcare.

Following the commission meeting, a memorandum was signed between the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation and the Ministry of Trade and Industry of Singapore on cooperation in the field of economic modernization. ¹

The Russian side stressed the importance of cooperation in the development of information technologies. "It would be right to focus on the exchange of experience in the development of the information society, ensuring the security of personal data, applying measures to support the information and communication technology sector, including relevant taxes, benefits and tariffs," Volodin said, noting that Singapore has done a lot in this direction and Russia has a lot to learn from ^it2.

Moscow also invited Singapore scientists and entrepreneurs to take part in the Skolkovo project.

SINGAPORE CATCHES UP AND SURPASSES AMERICA

Until recently, it was hard to imagine a comparison of such different, dissimilar countries as the United States and Singapore.

A huge territory, a multi-industry economy, leadership in innovative development, a huge domestic market and a leading position in world markets - these are the United States. Singapore is a small island state, a port-city country that has virtually no natural resources, no domestic market, and is focused on the regional and global markets.

But both "giant" and "dwarf" depend on the same factors of innovative growth. And their actions for the sake of maintaining competitiveness and leading positions in this area are largely similar.

Singapore was in the "same boat" with the United States due to factors such as:

- increasing the importance of "embedding" the economy of any country (regardless of the size and available natural resources) in the global economy, based on the global division of labor (in advanced knowledge-intensive sectors of the knowledge economy) and international cooperation for further innovative growth;

- focus of the economic policy of the most developed countries on an innovative breakthrough;

- the presence of an effective national innovation system (NIS), a developed innovation potential, a well-thought-out innovation policy, and a flexible innovation infrastructure in a particular country equalizes its chances of achieving the best indicators and results along this path;

- development of the knowledge economy with an emphasis on the use of human capital.

Table 1

Singapore and the United States ' place in the world by GDP per capita: nominal and purchasing power parity (PPP), $ thousand, 2010

Источник: World Economic Outlook Database, April 2011. 5. Report for Selected Countries and Subjects³.

Figure 1.

Source: Etzkowitz H., Dzisah J. et al. The triple helix model of innovation. Jan. 2007 - http://www.techmonitor.net/tm/images/7/7d/07jan_feb_sfl.pdf.

These factors negate the importance of the "scale effect" in the modern economy, make many countries less dependent on raw materials and more involved in the global technological processes of advanced knowledge-intensive industries.

Today, Singapore and the United States are not only next to each other in the world's leading rankings, but in many indicators of economic and innovative development, this "Asian dragon" is ahead of America.

The top two countries in terms of nominal per capita GDP are Luxembourg ($108.83) and Norway ($84.44), followed by Qatar ($76.2), and in terms of purchasing power parity - Qatar ($88.56) and Luxembourg ($81.38).

According to the rating of the Global Innovation Index, a generalized indicator of the level of innovation developed by the Boston Consulting Group, the American National Association of Manufacturers, etc., Singapore in 2011 ranked 3rd in the world after Switzerland and Sweden, the United States-7th (America was also ahead of Hong Kong (Hong Kong), Finland and Denmark). In particular, in terms of institutional conditions (the state of the political environment, regulatory environment and business conditions provided by public institutions), Singapore ranks 1st, the United States-18th, in terms of scientific contribution to innovation (knowledge creation, application of knowledge, use and export of knowledge), respectively, 11th and 14th place. In terms of human capital opportunities, America is ahead-5th place, Singapore-on the 11th, in terms of the diversity of the business environment (innovative environment, innovative ecosystem, openness to internal and external competition), respectively, 2nd and 3rd places ⁴.

At the same time, it should be noted that according to this index, America still occupies the leading place among large countries (following it, the United Kingdom, Germany and Japan are, respectively, on the 10th, 12th and 20th places, China is assigned the 29th place, Russia-56th).e out of 125). Despite all the conventionality of the index, it still gives a certain idea of the level of innovative development of various countries.

TRIPLE HELIX OF INNOVATIVE COOPERATION

In modern conditions, innovative development is carried out on the basis of the concept of national innovation systems (NIS). This concept involves the interaction of the three main participants of the NIS: the state, private business and universities. This model is called the "triple helix model".

Currently, it is inherent in almost any innovation system, but the nature of relationships between the participants of the "triple helix", the forms of their interaction may be different.

For example, in Singapore, the lack of a large domestic market has led to the fact that private business is represented mainly by multinational corporations (TNCs) and only to a small extent by national small firms. Universities are also focused on the needs of global and regional businesses of foreign companies. In this situation, Singapore remains one of the links in the international network of TNCs, and the link in which the total purchasing power of the population is low (only 5 million people). residents). That is why it is vital for it to become a link where the most added value is created, where wages are higher, and high-tech and knowledge-intensive types of services prevail.

The state in Singapore centrally regulates the activities of private businesses and universities, develops state plans and programs for stimulating and interacting NIS participants. But this centralization is flexible, deliberate, and precludes the suppression of economic freedom and the spirit of entrepreneurship. Singapore has a high degree of anti-corruption, in particular, members of its government are not engaged in amassing large personal fortunes.

At the same time, the American "triple helix" is based on the principles of decentralization, the absence of direct state interference in innovation processes, including in the relationship between private business and universities. And even now, in the period of increasing need for state support for innovative growth as a tool for a more confident way out of the crisis, the authorities are hesitant

radically abandon the principle of non-interference of the state in the activities of business and universities. Some experts believe that such a drastic change in the principles of the innovation system in the United States may deprive the country of its traditional competitive advantages. America seems to be at a crossroads: according to the traditional market scheme, the need for government intervention is "incompatible" with the freedom of innovative entrepreneurship.

The American economist G. Itzkowitz identifies 3 types of "triple helix" (see Figure 1).

Based on its typology, Singapore's innovation system has the characteristics of the first and third types of "triple helix" and can be considered as "mixed, hybrid". The US NIS, as defined by Itskowitz himself, refers to the network model of the innovation system (the third type).

FINDING AN EFFECTIVE BALANCE

Being different in type, the innovation systems of Singapore and the United States solve similar problems. First of all, it is of particular importance for both countries to maintain an effective balance between basic and applied research. But" small " Singapore, deprived of natural resources, is much more interested in solving this problem, because it risks losing the only source of growth in its well - being-innovation potential.

Until recently, most research and development (R & D) activities in Singapore, as well as technological ones, were focused on applied rather than basic research. Applied research was based on public participation and often took the form of joint public-private cooperation to solve production problems. Government laboratories in Singapore operated in two parallel directions: They provided services to TNCs in order to keep them in Singapore, and engaged in independent research for their own purposes.

In general, the state focused on obtaining an initial commercial result, which created strong incentives for laboratories to engage in applied research. Local authorities encouraged foreign firms to increase R & D in Singapore itself, using the same criterion of initial commercial performance. As a result, research in more fundamental areas was slowed down, where success in the market is less likely and more difficult to achieve.

Basic research, which, in turn, contributes to the activation of all stages of the innovation cycle, requires relatively large amounts of human capital and expenditures than for applied work. The Government is taking steps to address this problem by providing research fellowships in areas of science where basic research is predominant. Similar benefits exist at state research institutes and local universities. The State is also implementing a set of measures to attract foreign talent to Singapore.

In the United States, due to the gradual surrender of the position of an innovation leader and the need to reform the NIS, the question of the ratio of fundamental and applied work is no less actively discussed. For example, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation ( ITIF), a non-governmental organization established in 2006 to advise lawmakers in the US Congress on innovation policy, believes that innovation processes are growing like a snowball. Innovations take on the character of cascades, and their diffusion in society is significantly accelerated. A new, "cascade" innovation paradigm has emerged, in which the acceleration of innovation in business is ensured by increasing the volume of basic research.⁵

The real, strategically sustainable advantage (including cascading) lies in the combination and synergy of bottom-up innovations created on the basis of new knowledge and top-down innovations based on the existing knowledge base and their commercialization, as it becomes increasingly difficult to compete with Asian and European manufacturers only in top-down technologies. Moreover, many countries, such as Japan, South Korea, and China, have begun implementing state policies to transform their countries from "imitators" and "innovators" into "creators" of technologies, primarily in areas such as information systems, biotechnologies, and new materials. From this it is concluded that in the context of accelerating global rates of development of top-down technologies, American industry should develop not only and even, perhaps, not so much top-down technologies as bottom-up innovations.

For both Singapore and the United States, it is important to optimally configure the public-private partnership (PPP) system. Moreover, in the post-crisis period, in order to strengthen national competitive advantages, both countries strengthen elements that were previously "uncharacteristic" for their innovation systems. The United States has stepped up public participation, and Singapore is growing its own high-tech private corporations to do the same.

Singapore, which traditionally provides strong state support to innovative businesses, tries to strengthen the independence of national firms from state aid and increase their innovative independence in order to further develop innovations. Privatization of State-owned enterprises such as Singapore Airlines and Singapore Telecom has been one of the ways to strengthen the private sector in innovation.

At the same time, the country faces a dilemma: the private sector should be the engine of innovative and entrepreneurial growth, but to successfully create a new economy, Singapore needs an efficient public sector. However, maintaining its high efficiency has led to it diverting too much local talent to itself. Such a distraction

The lack of talent needed to develop innovation and entrepreneurship creates a shortage in the private sector.

It should not be forgotten that Singapore, unlike other "Asian tigers"*, relied on TNCs, mainly American, rather than local firms, to create and obtain its technological resources. Now the United States and Singapore are complementary systems: American corporations receive proper state guardianship and support in this country, and TNCs provide an influx of direct investment from the United States.

Singapore has implemented joint investment programs to encourage the presence of multinational corporations in its economy. The Council for Economic Development has developed new concepts, in particular, the formation of groups of industries (clusters) and focusing efforts on large investments in the field of technology, for example, the production of silicon wafers, biotechnologies, chemical technologies. In order to attract foreign small and medium-sized foreign enterprises, business centers are being created, in particular, for representatives of the Scandinavian countries, Germany and France.

TNCs account for 3/4 of Singapore's industrial output, and more than 60% of the industry's share capital is owned by foreigners. For many years, the country's own R & D has not been placed at the forefront of its innovation strategy.

Today, there are about 5 thousand multinational corporations located in Singapore. Almost half of them use it as a base, a springboard, and 850 companies produce products for world markets. Singapore has offices for almost 220 banks and has become a financial hub for almost 30 multinational corporations.⁶

Such" dominance " of TNCs does not mean that Singapore does not need to form its own layer of innovative small and medium-sized enterprises, and not only to serve the activities of branches and research laboratories of TNCs in large countries. On the contrary, it is precisely the strengthening of its own independent scientific and practical potential of small and medium-sized businesses that will allow the country to continue sustainable economic development in the XXI century, including in the form of cooperation with corporations from leading countries of the world.

Thus, from a historical perspective, Singapore is in the process of transitioning from a position in which it was primarily engaged in the adaptation, assimilation and dissemination of technologies developed by foreign corporations, to a more balanced system that pays increasing attention to developing its own innovation potential and creating local high-tech firms mainly in small and medium-sized businesses.

The United States, which has traditionally relied on the indirect influence of the state and on the freedom of innovative entrepreneurship, is also trying to strengthen the interaction of NIS participants under the auspices of the state, in particular, making maximum use of state levers to stimulate innovative development through the Ministry of Defense and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

In June 2011, the United States Department of the Navy announced a doubling of funding for the development of new dual-use technologies, with an emphasis on providing training for new engineering personnel. Such active participation of the defense sector in the educational process in the United States has not been seen in the last 25 - 30 years. Cooperation in this area with the largest universities in the United States is taking on a large scale.⁷

NASA also announced at the beginning of June 2011 that it was reallocating its research resources to the most applicable applied technologies in the "earth" industries. A recently published report on planned expenditures through 2016 shows that although the office's budget will not increase annually, its funds will be diverted from exclusively space operations to the development of multi-option technologies. To this end, it is planned to create profit-making centers for scientific and technological development, in which budget and commercial structures will participate as partners.⁸

Attempts to create a model of public-private innovation partnership were made in the United States during the Clinton administration in the 1990s. Now the federal authorities are considering proposals aimed at balancing the activities of all participants in the American innovation system. For example, in the model proposed by analysts R. Bendis and E. Beiler, the central place is occupied by the creation of a non-profit organization that balances the activities of all three NIS ⁹ participants. This means that such an organization, which would include leading players in the public and private innovation sectors, could play the role of a national innovation intermediary, coordinating the implementation of unique innovation programs.

* Economies with very high growth rates. The first to receive this honorary "title" were the "East Asian tigers" - South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan, which developed rapidly from the beginning of the 60s to the 90s of the XX century .

Table 2

Country innovation models: timeline for creation

Source: Chubais A. Innovative Economy in Russia: what to do? // Voprosy ekonomiki, 2011, No. 1.

ART AND INNOVATION

Along with science and high technologies, creative industries based on creativity and intellectual capital are becoming the most important area of the innovative economy. These include film, music, computer technology, fine arts, gallery business, fashion, publishing, design, and architecture. Both Singapore and the United States pay great attention to the development of a creative economy based on the use of creative industries.

Back in 2002, the Transform Singapore Initiative was launched to transform the country into a global hub for creativity, innovation and design. To this end, the Government is reforming the education system so as to encourage the development of creative abilities of young people. One of the ways of such incentives was the introduction of young, new-thinking talented people into various state structures responsible for economic policy.

In the United States, the emphasis on the creative direction of the innovation economy is manifested, in particular, in the fact that traditional STEM education, which includes such disciplines as science, technology, engineering and mathematics (science, technology, engineering, mathematics)¹⁰, actively includes creative, artistic subjects united by the general term Arts (humanities sciences). Industrial design, architecture, and industrial aesthetics are still the leading disciplines in Arts. As a result, there is a process of transformation from STEM education to STEAM (STEM + Arts) education.

FOREIGN EXPERIENCE AS AN INNOVATION ACCELERATOR

Singapore has demonstrated in practice that taking into account the experience of other countries accelerates innovation development. An indirect confirmation of this fact can serve as a comparison of the time frame for the creation of NIS in Singapore and other innovative countries, starting from 1960.

As shown in Table 2, Singapore took much less time to develop its own innovation system than other countries.

The island Nation is actively adopting the best practices of other countries in various ways. We are talking about public and private forms of organizing effective business and innovation, forms of public-private partnership, scientific and pedagogical innovations, and scientific parks and clusters of progressive industries.

Since the United States has long remained the sole leader in innovation development, a model of its own information system, Singapore adopted primarily the American experience.

In 1984, the Singapore International Monetary Exchange (SIMEX) opened with the assistance of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. The Business Alliance of the Chicago and Singapore Exchanges made Singapore the main center for trading futures contracts for financial instruments, including the eurodollar*, in Southeast Asia. ¹¹ Financial instrument futures contracts were an innovative exchange product at the time. They are still very important, because unlike banks and other OTC markets, which often turn operations with futures and other derivatives into "pyramids", all settlements are made on exchanges before the start of the next business day ¹².

Singapore has managed to attract such major American TNCs as Motorola, Intel, IBM, Hewlett-Packard and Microsoft, and aims to become the world's first "developed island" where the latest computer technologies will be put at the service of society.

So, in 2006 in Singapore was

* Futures (futures contract) (from the English futures - the future in plural. including) - a fixed-term exchange contract for the purchase and sale of the underlying asset, at the conclusion of which the parties (seller and buyer) agree only on the price level and delivery time. For a long time, it was used only for trading agricultural products. Since the early 1970s, the subject of futures trading has been currency, and then a whole range of other financial products, including stock or exchange-traded indices-composite indicators of changes in the prices of a certain group of securities, for example, shares of major companies.

Financial instrument - a financial document (security, monetary obligation, futures, option, etc.), the sale or transfer of which ensures the receipt of funds.

Eurodollar - monetary funds in US dollars deposited by their owners in banks located outside the United States, mainly in Western European banks (approx. ed.).

The Microsoft Innovation Center was opened - a branch of the corporation's global network, which includes about 100 such innovation centers around the world. The goal of the entire network is, first of all, to support the growth of local software "ecosystems" of the corporation.

The center is open to students, software developers, including many undergraduates and graduates of Singapore universities, information and communication technology professionals, Microsoft partners, entrepreneurs and researchers from the academic environment. It helps you creatively plan, research, develop, and place (install) innovative software solutions and products based on the best technologies and platforms from Microsoft.

In addition, this Center provides products and services designed to accelerate the adoption of all types of technologies, professional training and innovative industrial partnerships of all types. Its main areas of activity are:

- acceleration of specialist training and assistance in intellectual capital matters: providing Singapore employees with software products to increase their productivity (the so - called Skills Accelerator), management and marketing courses, software development courses, and employment programs for students;

- industrial partnerships: there is a , which facilitates the rapid integration of specialists and organizations within the innovation system. This is done by offering partner programs with Microsoft and creating local and regional industrial alliances of all types. These alliances contribute to the growth of specific software "industry clusters", as well as special software quality assurance programs;

- innovations: the so-called innovation accelerator {Innovation Accelerator), which focuses on developing local innovation potential ¹³.

In order to master the American innovation experience, the following channels have been used and are still being used::

- training in the United States of specialists who currently work in public innovation structures and corporations in Singapore. Each year, 100 scholarships are awarded to students in the field of science and engineering, which finance doctoral studies at foreign universities. This program costs $650 million. It was launched in 2000, and now the first doctors of science (this academic degree is roughly equivalent to a candidate of science in Russia) are returning to Singapore to work in state research laboratories or at local universities;

- serving the needs of TNCs, their subsidiaries and laboratories, which helps spread the research culture and other skills of leading American corporations in Singapore;

- cooperation with leading US universities in the field of research: for example, Singapore universities have been developing such cooperation for 30 years with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the world leaders in science and technology.

The career of Ngit Liong Wong, a member of the Government's Research and Innovation Council, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the National University of Singapore, and a leading researcher in Singapore's economy, is a prime example of the effectiveness of Singapore's use of the "learning channel" with the United States.¹⁴

Wong studied at the University of California, Berkeley, and received a Master of Business Administration (MBA) from McGill University in Canada. He worked for Hewlett-Packard in the United States, in its branch in Malaysia, was in the team that created Hewlett-Packard in Singapore, and became the general manager of the company's department. Having gained experience, he created his own venture corporation, which now operates in 40 countries in Asia, America and Europe. He also worked in the banking sector.

Many senior Singapore government officials have followed a similar path. Their career growth is determined, on the one hand, by getting an education in the best American universities, and on the other hand, by working in leading American TNCs.

* * *

These are the main trends in the development of very different national innovation systems in the United States and Singapore. Both countries are looking for ways to solve such modern innovative problems as the optimal ratio of fundamental and applied research, the development of public-private partnerships and the creative economy.

Their experience is instructive in solving the problems of creating innovative economies in other countries. As noted at the beginning of the article, Russia, actively cooperating with Singapore, can adopt this experience.

¹ Website of the Government of the Russian Federation http://govcrnment.ru/docs/16466/

^{Savinykh A.} 2 Russia is interested in economic and scientific cooperation with Singapore - Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation / / ITAR-TASS, 13.09.2011.

³ http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2011/01/weodata/weorept.aspx

⁴ http://www.globalinnovationindex.org/gii/main/analysis/rankings.cfm#CGI. SCRIPT_NAME#

^{Ezell Stephen} 5 and Atkinson Robert. RAND's Rose-Colored Glasses: How RAND's Report on U.S. Competitiveness in Science and Technology Gets it Wrong. By Stephen Ezell and Robert Atkinson. September 10, 2008 - http://www.itif.org/files/2008-RAND%20Rose-Colored%20Glasses.pdf

^{Trevor Monroe.} 6 The National Innovation Systems of Singapore and Malaysia. 2006 -http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN027022.pdf

⁷ http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/06/15/navy-to-invest-millions-in-science-education/#i xzz1PcIpNbtk

⁸ http://www.space-travel.com/reports/NASA_Spending_Shift_to_Benefit_Centers_Focused_o n_Science_and_Technology_999.html

⁹ Creating a National Public-Private Innovation Framework. By R.Bendis & E.Byler, 2009.

^{Frolov A.V.} 10 The role of STEM education in the" new economy " of the USA // Voprosy novoi ekonomiki, 2010, No. 4.

^{Melamed Leo.} 11 Begstvo v futyushersy [Escape to Futures], Alpina Publishers, 2010, pp. 344-345.

¹² Ibid., p. 11.

¹³ http://innovativesingapore.com/about/

^{Wong P.K., Y.P.Ho and Singh A.} 14 Industrial Cluster Development & Innovation in Singapore, Report submitted to IDE / JETRO, Feb. 2008.