O.V. Bogacheva’s research while affiliated with Institute of World Economy and International Relations, Russian Academy of Sciences and other places

The article discusses characteristic features of public-private partnerships (PPPs) as an instrument of public management of innovative development. It is noted that after the global financial crisis of 2008–2009, strategic PPPs play an increasingly important role in the implementation of large-scale research and technical programs and projects. They are characterized by a focus on solving long-term issues of innovative and socio-economic development, long implementation periods and significant scale, an emphasis on the development of critical technologies, complexity and expansion of functions of a public partner, as well as high risks of research and development. There are two types of such partnerships – institutional (Joint Technology Initiatives) and contractual. Both of these types are formed based on the European Technology Platforms, however, institutional partnerships involve formation of a legal entity, and contractual PPPs are formed based on agreements between the European Commission and industry associations. It is argued that a variety of forms and types of PPPs, in which public entities and corporations, research and educational institutions, and innovative small and medium-sized companies participate, can contribute to solving the priority tasks of Russia’s innovative development. To do this, first of all, it is necessary to amend the current legislation, which lacks norms regulating general principles and rules for the formation and functioning of PPPs in science and technology sectors. Russia’s regulations contain an extremely narrow definition of the purpose and objects of PPP agreements. The goals are not related to the public innovation policy, and the objects are represented by a closed list of 21 objects, which, with the exception of computer programs and databases, belong to technological complexes of real estate and transport infrastructure. According to the authors, adoption of such a legal act will contribute to implementation of the key national programs, projects and initiatives and boost innovation development of the country.

The article deals with the issues related to the monitoring of R&D projects supported by the public funds. In accordance with the current legislation, monitoring of scientific, technical and innovation projects is carried out within the framework of the structural elements of state programs. To conduct monitoring, results, control points and objects of scientific and technical activities should be established. At the same time, however, within the framework of the three forms of financial support for the implementation of R&D projects – grant financing, subsidies for the implementation of public assignments, public procurement – different monitoring methods and procedures are applied. Further, the names of the control points are not linked to the results of projects in terms of technology readiness levels (TRL). Finally, information systems that support the monitoring and evaluation of R&D results are not fully compatible with each other. As a result, the overall effectiveness of monitoring decreases, which leads to delays in making managerial decisions and entails wasteful spending of budget funds. In the leading OECD countries, there is a practice of centralized methodological support of the implementation of R&D and innovation, which provides an unified approach to management of such projects and conjugation of state support at all stages of innovation cycle. Successful project management involves application of such specific management tools as the stage gates model and TRL methodology, which provide effective monitoring of results and flexibility in making management decisions, including the possibility of adjusting the basic parameters of projects at different stages of their implementation. The experience of foreign countries shows that in order to improve the quality and effectiveness of monitoring of R&D projects in Russia, it is necessary to ensure the harmonization of general and sectoral legislation governing the monitoring of the results of research, development and innovation projects, which will ensure the formation of a unified approach within the framework of project management of state programs. It is advisable to extend the rules for monitoring the results of R&D adopted in the system of grant financial support to the systems of public assignment and public procurement in this area of activity, creating conditions for the conjugation of various forms of public support. Finally, it is necessary to improve operation of the existing state information resources for the management of scientific, technical and innovation projects.

The article describes evolution of Technology Readiness Level (TRL) scale and analyzes prospects of using TRL methodology as an instrument of public financing of R&D and innovation in OECD. It is noted that TRL was first applied at the end of 1960s by NASA, where it was used as a means of measuring progress in technology development. In the beginning of 2000s, it has become a widespread project management tool. Advantages and limitations of the TRL scale application in R&D project management are revealed in the article. In 2010s, several countries and regions started using TRL methodology in different capacity – as an instrument of public funding of national innovation systems. EU also announced plans to build TRL into the foundation of its new innovation policy. The plans were partially implemented in the subsequent EU Framework program Horizon 2020. Application of TRL scale was limited to tender documents and applications for project funding. It was not applied in the program budget planning or in assessment of project results. The authors claim that in order to use TRL methodology in public funding at full length, it is necessary to create certain conditions. The most important of them are: a} clear definition of the stages (types) and results of scientific and technical activities in accordance with the TRL methodology and linking them with the instruments of public support; b) development and application of appropriate number of industry-specific TRL scales; c) wider usage of TRL methodology and other indices of readiness in planning, implementation and integral evaluation of the results of R&D projects; d) introduction of TRL methodology into national systems of accounting and reporting on R&D projects and development of science, technology and innovation sphere.

At present, the methodology of technology readiness levels (TRL) is used worldwide by both public organizations and private companies to address a number of issues. In the system of public support for the development of the science, technology and innovation (STI) sector, TRL is increasingly used as a tool for R&D project management and funding. At the same time, the TRL methodology is not integrated into the budget process in any country in the world, which does not allow the full potential of TRL to be actualized. For Russia, where the role of state scientific and research organizations and public funding of STI is extremely important, this task is a real challenge. As the authors conclude, not only should the TRL methodology be adapted to the tasks of managing budget expenditures for R&D, but the public funding system with its financial instruments should also be adjusted taking into account the requirements of TRL. The key direction of integrating the TRL methodology into the budgetary process is linking of TRLs with elements of types of budgetary expenditures. This task could be accomplished after having taken the following measures: improvement of the budget classification in terms of R&D expenditures; application of a unified project approach to all instruments of state financial support and a unified classification of R&D projects; provision of a unified system for recording expenditures on science; improvement of public support instruments; and determination of the required ratio of R&D funding from budgetary and extrabudgetary sources for various TRL intervals. This work should include development and implementation of a new approach to understanding the boundaries of the STI sector, stages (types) of scientific activities, planning methods and conditions for the provision of public support, as well as improvements in the conceptual apparatus and tools of the support.

Among other things, the introduction of new pay systems in Russian federal institutions (2008) resulted in rapid growth of the variable part of wages. In the early 2010s, in numerous institutions this figure exceeded 50 %, and it still remains at an unreasonably high level. It is known, from the history of labor relations, that violation of balance between fixed (salary) and variable parts of wages leads to a reduction in motivation levels of employees and, as a consequence, to deterioration in productivity indicators and labor quality. In OECD countries, at the legislative level, the concepts of base and full rates of pay are introduced, and the number and size of incentive and compensation payments are optimized. The rates of base pay are regularly reviewed, taking into account changes in consumer prices and the cost of living. This practice allows a reasonable balance to be maintained between fixed and variable parts of wages. At the level of institutions, competency standards are being developed that ensure optimal differentiation in the size of the fixed part of wages and minimize the possibility of making incentive payments to employees simply for the performance of their job duties. The purpose of the article is to develop proposals for solving the problem of imbalance in the structure of wages of employees at Russian federal institutions, based on modern foreign practice in this area.

Subject. After the 2008–2009 global financial crisis, new elements and trends in budgetary governance have been developing within the framework of new budgetary principles reflected in budgetary law in most of OECD countries. These novelties resulted from profound reforms at the end of the 1990s–early 2000s. Exclusions from key budgetary principles are used much more extensively in modern budgetary practices iof OECD, especially, exclusions from principles of annuality, universality and unity. Objectives. The article is to study budgetary principles and exclusions applied to modern budget governance in the OECD countries. Methods. The study is based on general methods of analysis and synthesis as well as the e method of comparative analysis. Results. A unification trend in basic budgetary principles is considered to have become more evident in the OECD countries after the 2008–2009 global financial crisis. In the mean time, exclusions from budgetary principles make budgetary governance more flexible. We also highlight several relevant cases in budgetary practices of Russia. Conclusions. Considering both trends in modern budgetary practice in the OECD countries – unification of basic budgetary principles and legal exclusions, we suppose these countries attempt to find solutions to current budgetary and socio-economic challenges. Exclusions from the key budgetary principles are also applied in Russia but, contrary to OECD practices, they are not always written in legislation. Such a situation undermines the efficiency of budgetary planning and governance.

The article is dedicated to issues related to management of the so-called transit revenues in modern budgeting in Russia. By “transit” revenues the authors mean the category of non-tax budget revenues which are managed outside of established budgetary procedures, are not reflected in federal laws on budget, and are only included in the annual budget execution reports prepared by the Russian Treasury. The authors focus on the two most widespread types of “transit” revenues, i.e. on revenues of foreign establishments from legally permitted activities, and on remaining balances of subsidies and other targeted inter-budget transfers, returned to the federal budget. The major problem of “transit” revenues is that their volume increase and scope extension could cause additional risks associated with stability and robustness of the Russian budgetary system. As a result of the analysis, it was concluded that there is no universal solution to this problem, since each type of “transit” revenues is caused by its own reason or group of reasons. The authors analyze modern international experience in similar areas of revenue management and assess the viability of its application in budget revenue management in Russia. “Transit” revenues of foreign establishments originate from their unique legal status, allowing them to keep part of the revenues in the current year and/or in the future periods. Thus, they function in accordance with the net budgeting principle. As for “transit” revenues originated from the return of remaining balances of inter-budget transfers to the federal budget, their growth could be limited by the introduction of a new budgetary instrument, namely a revenue plan.

The article focuses on key characteristic features of spending reviews in the OECD countries and formation of institutional environment allowing for introduction of such reviews in the Russian Federation. Spending reviews have been applied as an element of project and program appraisal and evaluation in several OECD countries since 1980-s. Their limited nature at that time could be proved by the fact that they were mainly used only when governments faced severe budget deficits. After the global financial crisis (2007–2008) the situation has drastically changed: spending reviews evolved into an independent instrument of public finance management. The new approach assumes application of spending reviews both for identification of inefficient budget/ program expenditures and reallocation of freed financial resources in line with medium-term policy priorities. In the recent years, a set of principles has been developed and implemented in several OECD countries thus creating enabling environment for the further expansion of spending reviews in countries with different level of economic development and structure of budget systems. Based on the examination of spending reviews’ record in OECD countries, the authors discusses pre-requisites to be put in place in order to launch spending reviews in Russia, including changes in the legal base and integration of spending reviews in the budget preparation process. Changes in several resolutions of the RF Government and orders of the RF Ministry of Finance are required. The role of the RF Ministry of Finance in organization and overall management of the process of spending reviews’ planning and preparation should increase. Also, one of the Commissions in the RF Government should assume responsibilities to conduct oversight and approve general directions of spending reviews, since political support is critical for the final success in implementation of this financial instrument in Russia.