Economy of Ukraine
Published since September 1958
Login

№ 6/2016

Ekon Ukr. 2016 (6): 3–18

SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSIONS

УДК 338.45.01

JEL:

ZVERYAKOV Mykhailo1

1Odesa National Economic University, Research ID : http://www.researcherid.com/rid/http://www.researcherid.com/rid/B-1523-2015
OrcID ID : https://orcid.org/https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0039-5068


INDUSTRIAL POLICY AND A MECHANISM OF ITS REALIZATION


The objective necessity to implement the industrial policy as a form of the neoindustrialization is substantiated. It is note that the absence of the industrial policy in the country causes a reduction of the industrial production and the added value in the GDP structure. The attention is paid to the fact that the problem of the industrial policy becomes actual in the epoch of a deep system crisis in our country, when the components of a new economic policy as the basis for a long-term strategy of development are discussed.
The author has proved the thesis that, namely with the help of the industrial policy, it is possible to change the sectoral structure with the aim to stimulate the economic growth on the basis of a higher work efficiency. The industrial policy itself is a means of state’s control over progressive structural changes in the production sphere.
Some models of industrial policy on different stages of industrial development are considered. It is shown that, in the majority of developed countries, the industrial policy has evolved from the sectoral one to the policy aimed at an increase in the competitiveness. The tools to attain such purpose are measures of the institutional character.
It is made accent on that the establishment of institutional conditions of creation of companies in any branch, which realizes the large-scale innovative projects, is the principal task of the industrial policy on a macrolevel. The support of the wide renewal of firms able to realize the necessary investment projects with an increase in the competitiveness is the necessary element of the industrial policy on a microlevel.
It is emphasized that the main tasks of the industrial policy in Ukraine are the formation of a sound corporative sector sensitive to the innovations and the creation of development institutions. The development of a national industrial policy should be based, on the one hand, on the rich historical experience of highly developed countries and, on the other hand, should consider the own past and the current socio-economic and political development of the country.


Keywords:neoindustrialization, industrial policy, protectionism, “new economy”, industrial policy of competitiveness, development institutions

Article original in Ukrainian (pp. 3 - 18) DownloadDownloads :514
Article original in Russian (pp. 3 - 18) DownloadDownloads :290
The article was received by the Editorial staff on March 28 , 2016

References

1. Guriev S., Plekhanov A., Sonin K. Ekonomicheskii mekhanizm syr’evoi modeli razvitiya [The economic mechanism of a raw-material model of development]. Vopr. Ekonom. – Quest. of Economy, 2010, No. 3, p. 12 [in Russian].
2. Mau V. Mezhdu modernizatsiei i zastoem ekonomicheskoi politiki 2012 goda [Between a modernization and a stagnation of the economic policy of 2012 year]. Vopr. Ekonom. – Quest. of Economy, 2013, No. 2, p. 8 [in Russian].
3. Vyshnevs’kyi V. Promyslova polityka: teoretychnyi aspekt [Industrial policy: theoretical aspect]. Ekonomika Ukrainy – Economy of Ukraine, 2012, No. 2, pp. 4–15; No. 3, pp. 25–35 [in Ukrainian].
4. Heyets V.M. Bar’ery na shlyakhu rozvytku promyslovosti na innovatsiinii osnovi ta mozhlyvosti ikh podolannya [Barriers on a way of development of the industry on the innovative basis and possibilities to overcome them]. Ekonomika Ukrainy – Economy of Ukraine, 2015, No. 1, pp. 4–25 [in Ukrainian].
5. Rassadina A. Promyshlennaya politika kak faktor strukturnoi transformatsii [Industrial policy as a factor of the structural transformation]. Ekonomist – Economist, 2015, No. 7, pp. 30–42 [in Russian].
6. Tolkachev S. Dve modeli neoindustrializatsii: Germaniya – “industrializatsiya 4.0”, SShA – “Promyshlennyi internet” [Two models of neoindustrialization: Germany – “industrialization 4.0”, the USA – “Industrial internet”]. Ekonomist – Economist, 2015, No. 9, pp. 13–23 [in Russian].
7. Khan M. The Industrial Policy. Governance Challenge. SOAS, University of London, German Development Institute, Bonn, September 2014, pp. 1–9.
8. Petlevoi V. Metall bez sprosa [Metal without demand]. Vedomosti – Statements, December 25, 2015 [in Russian].
9. Yaremenko Yu.V. Prioritety Strukturnoi Politiki i Opyt Reform [Priorities of the Strucrutal Policy and the Experience of Reforms]. Moscow, Nauka, 1999, pp. 9–10 [in Russian].
10. List F. Natsional’naya Sistema Politicheskoi Ekonomii [Das Nationale System der Politischen Ökonomie]. Moscow, Evropa, 2005, p. 39 [in Russian].
11. Mel’yantsev V.A. Obzor diskussii [Review of a discussion]. Mir. Ekon. i Mezhdun. Otnosh. – World Econ. and Intern. Relat., 2015, No. 10, p. 105 [in Russian].
12. Salitskii A.I. Obzor diskussii [Review of a discussion]. Mir. Ekon. i Mezhdun. Otnosh. – World Econ. and Intern. Relat., 2015, No. 10, p. 106 [in Russian].
13. Porter M. Konkurentsiya [On Competition]. Moscow, Vil’yams, 2005, p. 362 [in Russian].
14. Khudokormov A.G. Istoriya Ekonomicheskikh Uchenii. Glava 21. § 2. Keinsianskie kontseptsii “bol’shogo tolchka” [History of Economic Doctrines. Chapter 21. Section 2. Keynesian conceptions of a “big push”]. Moscow, Infra – M, 1998, pp. 451–459 [in Russian].
15. Gugnyak V.Ya. Institutsional’naya Paradigma v Politicheskoi Ekonomii na Primere Frantsii [The Institutional Paradigm in Political Economy by the Example of France]. Moscow, Nauka, 1999, p. 64 [in Russian].
16. Myrdal G. Sovremennye Problemy “Tret’ego Mira” [Modern Problems of “the Third World”]. Moscow, Progress, 1972, pp. 181, 232 [in Russian].
17. Kondrat’ev V. Gosudarstvo i korporatsii v strategii global’noi konkurentosposobnosti [State and corporations in the strategy of global competitiveness]. Mezhdun. Prots. – Intern. Process., 2006, No. 3, p. 45 [in Russian].
18. Lin J. New Structural Economics: A Framework for Rethinking Development and Policy. Washington, DC, World Bank, 2012, p. 139.
19. Ricardo D. Nachala Politicheskoi Ekonomii i Nalogooblozheniya [On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation]. Vol. 1, Chap. 7. Moscow, Gospolitizdat, 1955, pp. 144–150 [in Russian].
20. Reinert E. Kak Bogatye Strany Stali Bogatymi, i Pochemu Bednye Strany Ostayutsya Bednymi [How Rich Countries Got Rich and Why Poor Countries Stay Poor]. Moscow, Publ. House of the State Higher School of Economy, 2013, p. 151 [in Russian].
21. Lin J., Chang Ha-J. Should industrial policy in developing countries conform to comparative advantage or defy it? A debate between Justin Lin and Ha-Joon Chang. Develop. Policy Rev., 2009, No. 27 (5), pp. 483–502.
22. Shelyubskaya N.V. Novye prioritety promyshlennoi politiki: opyt stran Zapadnoi Evropy [New priorities of the industrial policy: the experience of countries of the West Europe], available at: VPK.name/news//124357_noxtie_prioritety_promxis//poeikiki_opyit_stran_zapadnoi_evropyi.html [in Russian].
23. Ivanova N.I. Innovatsionnaya politika: teoriya i praktika [Innovative policy: theory and practice]. Mir. Ekon. i Mezhdun. Otnosh. – World Econ. and Intern. Relat., 2016, No. 1, p. 6 [in Russian].
24. Mekhanik A. Selektsiya i otbor [Selection and sampling]. Ekspert – Expert, 2016, No. 6, p. 45 [in Russian].