As a consequence the approach to the selection of residents for industrial and production zones was based not on the kind of economic activity as a criterion but on the consent to invest in its own development no less than Euro 10 mln over the period of zone existence (20 years). The result of such a policy of selection is that in industrial and production zone “Alabuga” it is the enterprise on production of cars model Fiat “Ducato” that is the main resident, and in Lipetsk oblast it is a number of companies for production of household appliances and agriculture equipment, electronics and biological fuel.
For the residents of the technology and innovation zones the minimum sum of investments is not defined at all, and the status of the resident of technology and innovation zone was obtained by all the scientific and production organizations that operated in the territory of the subjects of the Federation long before the decision on creation of zones of such a type was made.
Thus the first industrial and production as well as technology and innovation zones were created in Russia on the basis of the kinds of specialization existing in the territory of the Federation instead of selecting territories that are best suited for placement of priority production and research and development complexes.
Should this approach be followed in future one can hardly expect the development of new directions of innovation process, creation of processing production of high technology that are capable of making considerable macroeconomic effect.
The results of the functioning of the zones in 2007 are the following: 10 companies-residents are registered in industrial and production zones, 42 – in technology and innovation zones. Existing residents, according to the data of the Federal Agency for Management of Special Economic Zones, have already invested about RUR 8.5 bln, and by 2010 the results of their investment activity should be about RUR 27 bln and about 13 thousand of additionally created job vacancies.
It is generally expected that by 2010 the number of residents of these zones will increase up to 250 and the amount of additional investments will exceed RUR 35 bln.
Not only does the government in its turn provide residents with a number of quite considerable tax, customs and administrative preferences but it also takes the responsibility to make modern infrastructure for these zones. For instance, in 2007 the government invested in construction of their infrastructure RUR 12.bln, and according to the federal budget for b2008-2010 the expenditures at the sum of RUR 31 bln are planned for SEZ. Thus by the end of 2010 the government intends to allocate nearly RUR 43 bln for infrastructure improvement of the zones.
However making such huge investments one should very carefully approach the estimation of the efficiency of zones operation, since the return from the investments could be less than the forecasts based on business plans submitted by the residents state. Moreover, it seems very unlikely that that in the environment of privileged taxation regime (there are no taxes for enterprises’ assets and land during first five years of residence, the rate of profit tax is reduced to 20%, 30% limitation of transfer of the losses of the current taxation period on the forthcoming periods is cancelled, accelerated amortization is allowed) there is real opportunity to return the federal funds spent in the form of taxes for the budget even by 2015.
As to estimation of the economic efficiency of the zones, even their contribution to the Gross regional product of the regions where they are located, in middle-term run will remain not very significant, not mentioning the influence on competitiveness and diversification of the Russian economy as a whole.
Impact of the zones on the unemployment situation in these regions also won’t be significant, and consequently the social effect being however positive could hardly be called significant.
Uncertainty of the authorities as to the question whether the approach to the conduction of the experiment on creation of such zones is correct can be seen from the cautiousness as to the issue on declaration of the second contest for industrial and production as well as technology and innovation SEZ, whose possibility of conducting is dependent on the results of currently operating experimental areas.
From our point of view, the prospects for special economic zones development as a mechanism for public-private partnership should be connected with the creation of tourism and recreational as well as port zones in the territory of the Russian Federation. Effect from their operation could be far more significant for the Russian Economy than in case of the SEZ mentioned above, and there are several prerequisites for it.
First of all, annual expansion of direction and volumes of international freight flows, considerable growth of world and domestic tourism force Russia to get more actively involved in creation of international transition transportation passages and in formation of modern tourist complexes in the country’s territory.
Second, the spheres of tourism and transportation, having traditionally high potential for growth in the country, can significantly expand their contribution to the GDP on condition of creation the necessary infrastructure, meeting the requirements of rendered services quality and availability.
Third, readiness of the government to make large-scale investments in transport and tourism infrastructure, presence of additional tax privileges (for instance in concordance with subparagraphs 22-23 paragraph 2 clause 149 of the Tax Code services and works for servicing of airplanes and sea-crafts and inland ships during the mooring in the ports and exempted from VAT payment) as well as increased requirements for residents of port zones to make investments (no less than Euro 100 mln per resident building the objects of infrastructure of new seaport and no less than Euro 50 mln while construction of new river port or airport).
At the beginning of 2007 there were 7 tourism and recreational zones created in Russia according to legislation (in Krasnodar and Stavropol krais, in Altai krai, in Republic of Altai) but in fact that will not start to operate until 2012. It is expected that already by 2016 the creation of the zones will contribute to trebling the flow of the flow of tourists in the country, and by 2026 about 86 thousand of new job vacancies will be created in their territory.
Creation of port zones in Russia was postponed for a long time and all necessary changes to legislation were made only in October 2007. Port zones can be created both in territories open to international communication and entrance of foreign sea-crafts and inland ships and airports, operating international transportations, and in the territories that are intended for ports and airports construction and expansion. There are good chances for seaports in Novorossiysk, Murmansk, St. Petersburg as well as airports Domodedovo and Krasnoyarsk to become port SEZ. It is expected that the contest to choose port zones will be conducted in the first quarter of 2008.
Organizational Changes in Governmental Sector of Science I. Dezhina Changes in the status of Russian Academy of Science and its dependent institutions in connection with adoption of new Charter of Russian Academy of Science are discussed in this section. Advantages and disadvantages of new system of Russian Academy of Science work regulation are considered. Specific attention is paid to the issue of integration of fundamental science and education, in connection with adoption of new legislation, regulating conditions of joined scientific and educational activity of scientific and educational activity of scientific organization and higher education institution.
One of the central events of recent months was the discussion of the new Charter of the Russian Academy of Science, which the Academy should approve in connection with the changes made to the Federal Law “On science and governmental scientific and technical policy”.
The project of the Charter has been developed by the Russian Academy of Science and an alternative document, called “Project of the Model Charter of the government academy of sciences”, the authors of which are still unknown. In the addenda to the document it was stated that it was developed by the federal execution bodies of the Russian Federation with the participation of an expert committee. The Ministry of Education and Science promoted and popularized the main statements of the Model Charter. In November the Government approved the Charter18, that was developed by the Russian Academy of Science and approved by the General assembly of the Academy. Main changes suggested by Model Charter and the Charter developed by the Russian Academy of Science in comparison with the Charter of the Russian Academy of Science existing before, are represented in the Table 1.
It was the statement of the Model Charter according to which Supervision board was to be introduced that attracted attention. Supervision board was empowered with executive functions concerning Academy’s finances and property management as well as definition of the annual number of the Presidium, president’s, first vice-president’s and vice-presidents’ personnel. This could not have caused positive reaction of the Russian Academy of Science’s governing bodies and the Model Charter as a whole was subjected to the acute critics and it should be noted that not only by the representatives of academician society. Indeed, the Model Charter seemed to be not very well considered or worked out in detail document. For instance, charging of the supervision board with execution functions instead of control functions that it should in principle carry out contradicts the statement introduced by the Law on science that the President of the Russian Academy of Science is appointed by the President of the country and correspondingly giving the President of the Russian Academy of Science not only authority but also responsibility for all the decisions made by the Russian Academy of the Science. Model Charter did not define main directions of Russian Academy of Science work, nor did it mention the interaction of the Academy with the spheres of education and industry, badly works out the structure and mechanism of governing as well as concord of interests. Thus if the authors of the Model Charter considered its content in more detail and did not suggest such radical distribution of functions between the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Science and the Supervision board, then their idea on introduction of external control over the work of the Russian Academy of Science in the form of the Supervision board would have had the chances to be accepted.
The Charter of the Russian Academy of Science that was adopted gives the Academy considerably more freedom as to managing its finances and property and at the same time increases Academy’s responsibility for the results of its work. Russian Academy of Science becomes a full member of budgetary planning and is actually made equal to the body of federal power. From now on the Academy and its regional departments will be given subsidies to fulfill the program of fundamental scientific research, Russian Academy of Science and its Organizations will be able to open accounts in credit institutions. Financing of scientific organi Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation “On Russian Academy of Science”, No785 from 19.11. zations, dependent on the Russian Academy of Science will be based not on the calculation but will be allocated by one line. Academic structures will have right to be founders of other organizations. Russian Academy of Science also have a right to contribute statutory capital of the commercial organizations created by it the results of research and development work in concordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation.
All this makes the organizational structure of academic science more flexible and increases the possibilities of scientific organization participation in innovation process.
Table Changes in Russian Academy of Science Organization and Regulation Charter of the Russian Suggestion of the Model Charter Charter of the Russian Academy of Academy of Science exist- Science approved in ing earlier President of the Russian President of the Russian Academy of President of the Russian Academy of Academy of Science is Science is elected by the General Science is elected by the General assemelected by the General as- assembly and his appointment is bly and his appointment is confirmed by sembly confirmed by the President of the the President of the Russian Federation Russian Federation Charter of the Russian Charter of the Russian Academy of Charter of the Russian Academy of Academy of Science is Science is adopted by the General Science is adopted by the General asadopted by the General assembly and approved by the Gov- sembly and approved by the Governassembly ernment of the Russian Federation ment of the Russian Federation Academy has governmental The Academy has legal and organiza- The Academy is non-commercial scienstatus, is self-regulating and tion form of a budgetary institution tific organization created in the form of financed from the state and has a right to regulate its own governmental academy of sciences. It is budget work a self-regulating organization.
There is no supervising Supervising committee is a joint There is no supervising committee committee regulating body of the Academy regulation. It is composed of three representatives of the Academy, three – of the Government and one representative from the State Duma, the Federal Assembly, the Presidential Administration Among those who have a Among those who have a right to Changes that are made to the Charter of right to elect the governing elect the governing body of the the Russian Academy of Science are body of the Academy there Academy there is one half of the adopted at the General Assembly of the are two thirds of the acade- academicians and one half of the academicians with the majority of two micians and one third of the representatives of the organization of thirds votes of the members of the genrepresentatives of the or- the Academy eral assembly that took part in voting. It ganization of the Academy is necessary to be the majority of the votes from the full list of the members of the Russian Academy of Science and majority of votes of the full list of the full members of the Russian Academy of Science. As to other issues decisions are made by the majority of those present.
Материалы этого сайта размещены для ознакомления, все права принадлежат их авторам.
Если Вы не согласны с тем, что Ваш материал размещён на этом сайте, пожалуйста, напишите нам, мы в течении 1-2 рабочих дней удалим его.