Financial aspects of import substitution and new regional clusters formation

Industrial cooperation is a response to the modern challenges of the domestic economy. Insufficient competitiveness in the global economy, low performance indicators, sanctions, limited resources, and import substitution – all these factors actualize the search for solutions to reduce risks for successful and technological development of the domestic economy. One of the most effective tools in solving these issues is forming industrial integration structures such as industrial clusters or industrial technology parks for smaller businesses and at the initial stages. The promotion of various forms of industrial cooperation became particularly important in early 2023 after the Message from the President of the Russian Federation to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation. This served as a trigger for increasing the activity and expansion of government support measures towards forming new and support for the existing industrial cooperative associations’ activities. Since 2023, there has been a rapid increase in the number of new technology parks and clusters. However, along with the positive statistics of the increase in quantity, there is no parallel growth in quality indicators: the level of organizational interaction among cluster participants and their activities in the context of import substitution continue to be at a low stage of development, there is a structural bias towards financing technology parks, as well as a structural bias in the format of SME participation mainly in technology parks rather than clusters. This does not correspond to the tasks of industrial cooperation proper, which is aimed at using economies of scale in small participants integration, which necessitates not only the correction of the volume and criteria of state support for formal participants in cooperative associations, but also its formation depending on the degree of development of the cluster structures themselves. The moment has come when it is necessary to move from quantitative indicators to qualitative ones. Otherwise, the economy may face a situation where the apparent number of clusters will be significant, which will increase the corresponding burden on the budget. At the same time, the expected effects of industrial integration in the context of innovation progress and import substitution will not be achieved.

1. Animitsa E.G., Animitsa P.E., Glumov A.A. Import substitution in the industrial production of the region: conceptual, theoretical and applied aspects. The economy of the region. 2015;3(43):160–172. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17059/2015-3-14

2. Apokin A.Yu., Gnidchenko A.A., Sabelnikova E.M. Import substitution potential and benefits from economic integration: disaggregated estimates. Economic policy. 2017;2(12):44–71. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.18288/1994-5124-2017-2-02

3. Aspromourgos T. The life of William Petty in relation to his economics. History of Political Economy. 1988;20:337–356.

4. Fadeeva T.V. Features of cluster policy in Russia and abroad. Bulletin of the Pacifi State University. 2021;2(61):103–112. (In Russian).

5. Kharlanov A.S., Karpenkova O.P. The development of the world economy in the cluster policy of foreign countries. Economics and entrepreneurship. 2020;6(119):26–30. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.34925/EIP.2020.119.6.002

6. Kosarev A.S. Components of the potential of technological independence of pharmaceutical industry enterprises. Socio-economic management: theory and practice. 2025;3(21):21–29. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.22213/2618-9763-2025-3-21-29

7. Kosov M.E., Golubtsova E.V., Novikova E.S. State tax regulation in agriculture in the context of import substitution policy. Finance: theory and practice. 2023;2(27):119–130. V https://doi.org/10.26794/2587-5671-2023-27-2-119-130

8. Krivenko N.V., Epaneshnikova D.S. Import substitution as a tool for stabilizing socio-economic development of regions. The economy of the region. 2020;3(16):765–778. (In Russian). https:// doi.org/10.17059/ekon.reg.2020–3-7

9. Kuchumov A.V., Eremicheva P.Y. Features of the formation of industrial cluster policy in developing Asian countries. π-Economy. 2025;2(18):100–120. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.18721/JE.18206

10. Matveeva L.G., Chernova O.A. Russian import substitution in the context of the “new normality”. Terra Economicus. 2016;2(14):127–138. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.18522/2073-6606-2016-14-2-127-138

11. Melekhin V.D., Bojikova T.P. Formation of measures to improve the import substitution program. Economics and management: problems, solutions. 2023;1(10):116–127. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.36871/ek.up.p.r.2023.10.01.012

12. Simachev Yu., Kuzyk M., Zudin N. Import dependence and import substitution in the Russian manufacturing industry: a business perspective. Foresight. 2016;4(10):25–45. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17323/1995-459X.2016.4.25.45

13. Tsypin A.P., Ovsyannikov V.A. Comparative characteristics of the development of industrial potential in Russia and the USA for the period 1970-2010. Bulletin of Orenburg State University. 2014;14(175):57–60. (In Russian).

14. Vagin S.G. Strategic development of the innovative potential of industrial enterprises. Upravlenie / Management (Russia). 2024;3(12):74–82. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.26425/2309-3633-2024-12-3-74-82

15. Yasheva G.A., Nikolaeva Yu.N., Kondratieva V.D. Cluster policy in the European Union and the Republic of Belarus: a comparative analysis. Bulletin of the Vitebsk State Technological University. 2022;2(43):203–217. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.24412/2079-7958-2022-2-203-217

16. Yelovaya E.M., Tchaikovsky Yu.V. Features of cluster policy development in the EAEU member states. Oikonomos: Journal of Social Market Economy. 2020;1(16):76–85. (In Russian).

17. Zhu T. Rethinking Import-substituting Industrialization. Development Strategies and Institutions in Taiwan and China. UNU-WIDER Research Paper. Helsinki: UNU-WIDER; 2006.