Positive effects of cluster policy such as the increase of new cluster initiatives (out of the supported ones) suggest the importance of long-standing cluster support programs. Not only allocation of funds, but also legitimation of relevant regional clustering initiatives and policies Several specific support programmes can turn to be more effective, than a holistic one, which “addresses all the issues of all clusters”. Specific cluster programs with different design depending on particular industry (50+ according to Porter and ECO) / group of industries? Policy traditions employed by different ministries is more influential for support programmes design than country or cluster features. Openness between different ministries and mutual learning is crucial to overcome possible path dependencies of current policy traditions Cluster mapping is worth even greater consideration. Regional experimentation in industrial policy need not be limited; it is the risks distribution that need to be optimized (the less clustering potential is feasible, the more private or/and regional co-investment is required). Basis for enhancing interregional collaboration between CI Services (including KIBS), creative and cultural industries can be underestimated as full-fledged regional development priorities and cluster policy addressee. (BUT: cluster policy efficiency could be industry-related)

1. 20th TCI 201Global conference "The
Future
of
Clusters
Through
Cross-­‐Country
and
Cross-­‐region
Collabora7on“.
7-­‐9
November
2017
Modern industrial policy toolkit:
insights from the Russian cluster
policy experience
Evgeniy
Kutsenko
Head
of
the
Russian
cluster
observatory
Na7onal
Research
University
-­‐
Higher
School
of
Economics

2. 1.
Na&onal
policy
has
had
a
significant
impact
on
the
emergence
of
cluster
ini&a&ves
and
their
performance.
Evidence
from
the
pilot
innova&ve
clusters
(PIC)
program
0,42
0,85
0
0,5
1
Average
number
of
new
CI
located
in
non-­‐PIC
home
regions
located
in
PIC
home
regions
In
the
regions
of
the
state
supported
clusters
(PICs)
new
cluster
ini7a7ves
were
created
on
average
twice
as
intensively
as
in
the
other
regions.
3
7
58
0
50
100
The
share
of
CI
with
medium
or
high
level
of
ins&tu&onal
development
non-­‐PICs,
%
PICs,
%
Average
employment
in
the
clusters
supported
by
the
state
subsidy
was
3
&mes
higher
than
in
the
clusters
with
private
funding
only
1
2
The
share
of
PICs
with
high
and
medium
level
of
ins7tu7onal
development
is
8.29
&mes
higher
than
the
respec7ve
share
of
non-­‐PICs
4
18
of
65
CI
which
had
lost
the
contest
con&nued
func&oning,
despite
the
lack
of
state
support
40%
of
the
German
cluster
ini7a7ves
with
rejected
applica7ons
for
InnoRegio
programme
contest
s7ll
exist
and
implement
their
projects
(Eickelpasch
and
Fritsch,
2005).
lost
the
PICs
compe77on,
but
survived
lost
the
PICs
compe77on
and
vanished
28%
7,8
23,8
0
10
20
30
Average
No.
of
employees
in
CI
non-­‐PICs,
K
people
PICs,
K
people

3. 2.
Specific
support
programmes
can
address
different
challenges
and
industries
/
sectors
(manufacturing-­‐
based,
science-­‐based,
SME-­‐based
clusters)
Boost
compe77veness
of
SMEs
in
tradi7onal
industries
such
as
food,
wood
processing,
furniture,
jewelry
and
so
on.
Financing
of
collabora7ve
projects
-­‐
is
one
of
the
important
instruments.
27
pilot
innova7ve
clusters
located
in
28
Russian
regions
were
selected
for
subsidizing
with
the
total
funds
exceeding
€
90
m
in
2013-­‐2015.
12
Russian
regions
host
12
innova7ve
clusters,
which
were
assigned
the
status
of
investment
a_rac7veness
leaders
on
a
global
scale.
34
clusters
development
centres
located
in
33
Russian
regions
were
subsidized
with
the
total
funds
of
€
19.4
m
in
2010-­‐2016.
22
industrial
clusters
are
located
in
20
Russian
regions.
The
total
subsidy
to
support
8
cluster
projects
is
expected
to
be
€
27
m
in
2013-­‐2015.
Provide
comprehensive
approach
to
support
of
new
and
emerging
industries,
such
as
IT,
biotechnology,
advanced
materials,
etc.
It's
crucial
to
build
a
proper
ecosystem
around
them;
define
key
regions,
their
roles,
enhance
cross-­‐
regional
coopera7on
Map
of
na7onally-­‐supported
clusters
and
cluster
development
centres
in
Russia
Revitalize
the
old
industrial
agglomera7ons:
aerospace,
automo7ve,
nuclear
sectors,
petrochemical
and
chemical
industries.
Value
chains
extension
and
diversifica7on
to
the
new
markets
are
needed.
Challenge
1
Challenge
2
Challenge
3

4. 3.
Policy
tradi&ons
employed
by
different
ministries
is
more
influen&al
for
support
programmes
design
than
country
or
cluster
features
Criteria
Innova&ve
Clusters
(Ministry
of
Economic
Development,
2012)
Industrial
Clusters
(Ministry
of
Industry
and
Trade,
2015)
Key
support
goals
§ Export
volumes
increase
§ A_rac7on
of
investments
§ Enhance
industrial
coopera7on
§ Import
subs7tu7on
Sectorial
and
spa&al
orienta&on
§ No
restric7on
to
sectors
of
ac7vity
(in
fact,
biopharmaceu7cs,
IT,
aerospace,
petro-­‐chemistry,
and
machinery)
§ Single
region
or
neighboring
regions
§ Manufacturing
§ Cases
of
clusters
with
members
in
the
regions
remoted
from
each
other
Support
provision
principles,
and
support
addressee
§ Advance
co-­‐funding
§ Regional
authori7es
§ Compensa7ons
of
ex-­‐post
expenses
§ Industrial
enterprises
Support
focus
§ Synthe7c
cluster
programmes
(a
set
of
projects
fulfilled
by
various
cluster
members)
§ Joint
projects
fulfilled
by
two
or
more
cluster
members
(there
is,
at
least,
one
clusters
member
who
invests
in
a
new
product
that
is
planned
to
be
purchased
by
the
other
clusters
member)
Cluster
management
organiza&on
as
a
na&onal
support
addressee
§ Supported
from
the
federal
funds
inter
alia
§ Not
supported
(they
are
financed
either
by
cluster
members,
or
regional
authori7es)
Cluster
selec&on
approach
§ One-­‐7me
compe77on,
cluster
short-­‐list
upda7ng
unformalized
§ Cluster
short-­‐list
is
made
up
on
a
applica7ve
and
con7nuing
basis
Funding
&me-­‐frame
§ One
year
§ Annual
compe77on
of
applica7ons
among
clusters
from
a
closed
short-­‐list
§ A
contract
between
Ministry
of
Industry
and
Trade
and
cluster
project
ini7ator
for
a
5-­‐year
period
maximum

5. 4.
Regions
can
vary
greatly
in
terms
of
cluster
poten&al
(quan&ty
and
strength
of
sta&s&cal
clusters),
which
is
not
always
considered
by
policy-­‐makers
42
41
40
38
37
35
34
33
28
28
27
26
24
23
23
22
21
21
20
17
16
16
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
13
12
12
12
12
12
11
11
11
11
11
11
10
10
10
10
9
9
8
7
7
7
6
6
6
5
5
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
City
of
St.
Petersburg
City
of
Moscow
Moscow
Region
Republic
of
Tatarstan
Sverdlovsk
Region
Rostov
Region
Republic
of
Bashkortostan
Nizhny
Novgorod
Region
Perm
Region
Samara
Region
Tyumen
Region
Chelyabinsk
Region
Krasnoyarsk
Region
Vladimir
Region
Krasnodar
Region
Leningrad
Region
Irkutsk
Region
Novosibirsk
Region
Saratov
Region
Voronezh
Region
Tula
Region
Kemerovo
Region
Kirov
Region
Primorsky
Region
Yaroslavl
Region
Tver
Region
Kaluga
Region
Briansk
Region
Republic
of
Udmur7a
Volgograd
Region
Smolensk
Region
Stavropol
Region
Khabarovsk
Region
Republic
of
Sakha
(Yaku7a)
Vologda
Region
Orenburg
Region
Chuvash
Republic
Ulyanovsk
Region
Penza
Region
Omsk
Region
Arkhangelsk
Region
Altai
Region
Belgorod
Region
Kursk
Region
Republic
of
Komi
Ryazan
Region
Tomsk
Region
Republic
of
Mordovia
Murmansk
Region
Tambov
Region
Novgorod
Region
Astrakhan
Region
Mari
El
Republic
Lipetsk
Region
Zabaikalsky
Region
Kostroma
Region
Amur
Region
Ivanovo
Region
Republic
of
Karelia
Pskov
Region
Republic
of
Burya7a
Kaliningrad
Region
Republic
of
Dagestan
Kurgan
Region
Orel
Region
Republic
of
Kabardino-­‐Balkaria
Kamchatka
Region
Magadan
Region
Republic
of
Severnaya
Ose7ya-­‐Alaniya
Sakhalin
Region
Chechen
Republic
Karachay-­‐Cherkessia
Republic
Jewish
Autonomous
Region
Republic
of
Adygea
Republic
of
Altai
Ingush
Republic
Republic
of
Kalmykia
Republic
of
Tyva
Republic
of
Khakassia
Chukotka
Autonomous
Area
Number
of
strong
clusters
(at
least
1
star)
Number
of
clusters
with
cluster
ini7a7ves
Number
of
strong
clusters
(at
least
1
star)
with
cluster
ini7a7ves
Regions
with
ci7es
of
more
than
1
mln
dwellers
5

6. Cluster
mapping
helps
to
specify
the
policy.
The
case
of
Water
transporta&on
in
Russia:
s&ll
great
poten&al
for
cluster
ini&a&ves
and
cross-­‐regional
coopera&on
Shipbuilding cluster
(Astrakhan region) Shipbuilding and
aircraft pilot innovative
cluster of Khabarovsk
region
St. Petersburg
Composites cluster
Shipbuilding pilot
innovative cluster of
Arkhangelsk region
- Cluster initiatives (CI) - Strong clusters (at least one star by the ECO methodology)- CI, supported by the Ministry of Economy
-­‐
High
(4
or
3
stars)
-­‐
Medium
(2)
-­‐
Basic
(1)
Cluster
strength
6

7. 5.
The
intensity
and
validity
of
cluster
policy
varies
greatly
in
different
sectors.
Russia
priori&zes
hi-­‐tech
and
manufacturing
3
2
0,2
9
3
2
8
18
15
19
0
5
10
15
20
25
Valid
and
full-­‐scale
cluster
policy
Unfocused
cluster
policy
Feasible
cluster
policy
with
room
for
progress
No
cluster
policy
Average
number
of
clusters
and
cluster
ini7a7ves
7
Number
of
strong
clusters
(at
least
1
star)
Number
of
clusters
with
cluster
ini7a7ves
Number
of
strong
clusters
(at
least
1
star)
with
cluster
ini7a7ves
4
industries:
§ Biopharmaceu7cals
§ Aerospace
Vehicles
and
Defence
§ Informa7on
Technology
and
Analy7cal
Instruments
§ Automo7ve
21
industries:
§ Upstream
Metal
Manufacturing
§ Upstream
Chemical
Products
§ Plas7cs
§ Construc7on
Products
and
Services
§ Food
Processing
and
Manufacturing
§ Downstream
Metal
Products
§ Agricultural
Inputs
and
Services
§ Furniture
§ Downstream
Chemical
Products
§ Tex7le
Manufacturing
10
industries:
§ Livestock
Processing
§ Paper
and
Packaging
§ Oil
and
Gas
Produc7on
and
Transporta7on
§ Jewellery
and
Precious
Metals
§ Coal
Mining
§ …
16
industries:
§ Music
and
Sound
Recording
§ Performing
Arts
§ Video
Produc7on
and
Distribu7on
§ Marke7ng,
Design,
and
Publishing
§ Distribu7on
and
Electronic
Commerce
§ Financial
Services
§ Insurance
Services
§ Apparel
§ …
Hi-­‐tech
Manufacturing
and
agriculture
Tradi7onal
and
primary
industries
KIBS,
crea7ve
and
cultural
industries

8. Ideas
for
industrial
policy
1. Posi7ve
effects
of
cluster
policy
such
as
the
increase
of
new
cluster
ini7a7ves
(out
of
the
supported
ones)
suggest
the
importance
of
long-­‐standing
cluster
support
programs.
Not
only
alloca7on
of
funds,
but
also
legi7ma7on
of
relevant
regional
clustering
ini7a7ves
and
policies
2. Several
specific
support
programmes
can
turn
to
be
more
effec7ve,
than
a
holis7c
one,
which
“addresses
all
the
issues
of
all
clusters”.
Specific
cluster
programs
with
different
design
depending
on
par7cular
industry
(50+
according
to
Porter
and
ECO)
/
group
of
industries?
3. Policy
tradi7ons
employed
by
different
ministries
is
more
influen7al
for
support
programmes
design
than
country
or
cluster
features.
Openness
between
different
ministries
and
mutual
learning
is
crucial
to
overcome
possible
path
dependencies
of
current
policy
tradi7ons
4. Cluster
mapping
is
worth
even
greater
considera7on.
Regional
experimenta7on
in
industrial
policy
need
not
be
limited;
it
is
the
risks
distribu7on
that
need
to
be
op7mized
(the
less
clustering
poten7al
is
feasible,
the
more
private
or/and
regional
co-­‐investment
is
required).
Basis
for
enhancing
interregional
collabora7on
between
CI
5. Services
(including
KIBS),
crea7ve
and
cultural
industries
can
be
underes7mated
as
full-­‐
fledged
regional
development
priori7es
and
cluster
policy
addressee.
(BUT:
cluster
policy
efficiency
could
be
industry-­‐related)
8