Business networking. Basic research. Power and business: networking

Drobyshevskaya Larisa Nikolaevna, Doctor of Economics, Professor of the Department of World Economy and Management, Kuban State University, Krasnodar, Russia

Larionova Irina Georgievna, post-graduate student of the Department of World Economy and Management, Kuban State University, Krasnodar, Russia

Publish your monograph in good quality for only 15 tr!
The base price includes proofreading of the text, ISBN, DOI, UDC, LBC, legal copies, download to the RSCI, 10 copyright copies with delivery across Russia.

Moscow + 7 495 648 6241

Sources:

1. Pozhidaev R.G. The development process of interfirm networks: theories and models // Vestnik VSU. Series: Economics and Management. - 2011. - No. 1. - P. 286–291.
2. Popova Yu.F. Network forms of business organization in industrial markets // Russian Journal of Entrepreneurship. - 2008. - No. 10. - P. 140–144.
3. Sheresheva M.Yu. Forms of network interaction of companies. Course of lectures, textbook. allowance. - M .: Higher School of Economics, 2010 .-- 339 p.
4. Jones C., Hesterly W.S., Borgatti S.P. A general theory of network governance: Exchange conditions and social mechanisms // Academy of Management Journal. - 1997. - Vol. 2. - No. 4. - P. 911-945.
5. Miller N. Networking as marketing strategy: a case study of small community business // Qualitative MarketResearch: An International Journal. - 2010. - Vol. 13. - No. 3. - R. 253–270

Analysis of the literature shows that there are many terms implying different types of network interaction of organizations. These terms are diverse, can denote both different and similar types of networks, overlap, go beyond the definitions of a network, adopted within the framework of a goy or another concept.

Figure: 4.1.

In fig. 4.1. provides a list of terms denoting networking by different authors. Far from complete, it does give an idea of \u200b\u200bhow vague the terminology is. There is no generally accepted classification of networks, although there are a number of different typologies (see Appendix 4.1). Basically, these are the approaches of foreign authors, among them the well-known typologies of Miles - Snow, Jereffy - Humphrey - Storzhona speaks of "two models of networkization": first, a hierarchical network structure, when a large company gathers firms around itself smaller, performing certain tasks for it, acts as the main customer and occupies, accordingly, a dominant position in business operations. By virtue of its position, it can dictate the conditions and make the choice of the most beneficial partners with good potential. At the same time, control is exercised not through participation in capital, but through a market mechanism, but small firms quickly become dependent on a more powerful partner. R. Paturel considers the second model to be the emergence of a network of enterprises that are similar in size, most of which are legally independent, but have common goals and support each other's stability (often they all operate within the same industry or one region).

H. Hinterhuber and B. Levin proceed from the fact that network organizations can be viewed from two points of view - intra-organizational and inter-organizational. We have already talked about this in previous lectures: an intra-organizational network is a collection of individuals and divisions within the same legally defined boundaries, while an inter-organizational network is a coalition of independent economic actors. X. Hinterhuber and B. Levin take the structure of networks as a criterion for classification and distinguish internal networks

• 1 B.Z. Milner suggested dividing network organizations into temporary multidisciplinary teams of specialists for the implementation of large projects; in areas ("valleys") with small manufacturing firms or their equivalent within a large company; large geographically distributed manufacturing firms (example: Japanese keiretsu); strategic alliances.
• (a set of semi-autonomous strategic business units within one organization) and external networks. INin turn, these authors subdivide external networks into three categories.
• Horizontal network(horizontal network) in this classification is defined as alliances of similar firms operating in the same markets. The purpose of their creation is the development and promotion of a specific technology (product) to conquer a certain market segment. The authors call the air alliances OneWorld, SkyTeam, StarAlliance as examples of horizontal networks. Their interaction is based on the pooling of resources at the disposal of partners to jointly develop updated and fundamentally new processes and proposals.
• Vertical networkThe (vertical network) is viewed as an industry-specific supply and distribution channel, centered around a "classic" manufacturing company acting as a central agent (pivotal or focal firm). The company itself performs a limited number of functions, including an integrator, outsourcing most of the other functions. X. Hinterhubsr and B. Levin consider Benetton as one of the examples of a vertical network (Appendix 4.1).
• Diagonal network(diagonal network), formed with the participation of various companies operating in different market sectors and very different from each other. An example is the American company TCI, which has formed a network of large agents from various industries (from Microsoft to representatives of Hollywood) around itself.

It is easy to see that this classification uses the already considered division of quasi-integration into vertical, horizontal and conglomerate (here it is less aptly called diagonal). In principle, this is a productive idea that should be taken into account when identifying network types. However, this typology does not take into account such characteristics as the degree of dynamism of network structures and the size of participating companies. In addition, H. Hinterhuber and B. Levin focused on networks that have a central agent, while in reality there are many structures where there is no single core company, and management is carried out, for example, by a specially created or hired broker who has the rights to management is delegated by all network participants.

There is a well-known approach that takes into account the dynamic aspect - the Miles-Snow typology.

Figure: 4.2.

In this case, internal networks, on the one hand, and strategic and dynamic ones, on the other, are the opposition of an integrated structure of a traditional type and quasi-integrated structures. Thus, for the purposes of classifying inter-firm interactions, this typology provides only a starting point, without making it possible to make clearer distinctions between different types of stable and dynamic networks.

The same can be said about the classification of G. Jereffy, J. Humphrey and T. Stordjon IGereffi et al., 2005J, who take the form of management and the degree of stability of ties as the basis for the classification, but consider only vertical integration, highlighting five basic forms of value chain management (fig. 4.3) listed below.

• Market chain.The links between suppliers are fragile. Switching costs are low for both companies.
• Modular chain.In general, a supplier in a modular chain supplies the consumer with a product with specified characteristics. The supplier undertakes to provide such a product on a turnkey basis and bears the costs of providing the requested performance, strictly controlling the product specification. Accordingly, it bears all the costs of specific investments (restrictions on the material used, production technology, etc.). The elements of MK Rynok are quite strong in the modular chain - if the supplier fails to provide the required quality, the company switches to another supplier.
• Relational chain.In this type of chain, there is a complex relationship between buyer and seller. This type of interaction is characterized by interdependence of companies and a high level of specificity of their assets; relationships are maintained on the basis of reputation and mutual trust. In such a chain, companies may be guided by considerations of mutual benefit and try to look for win-win situations.
• "Kaitive" 1 chain.In this type of chain, small suppliers depend on an aggregated buyer. The switching costs of small companies are extremely high and therefore tied to the purchaser. This type of chain is characterized by a high level of control and monitoring costs by the purchaser. In contrast to the modular chain, there is an initial "sharpening" of the company's product only for one buyer.
• Hierarchical chain.Chain in a vertically integrated company. The dominant form of chain management is hierarchical management (from the management company to specific enterprises).

In this typology, the hierarchical chain corresponds to the internal network according to the Miles - Snow classification (MC “Hierarchy” dominates), the market chain is not a network (MC “Market” dominates), and the modular, relational and captive chains are of interest to us, since we are talking about certain forms of interorganizational network management. However, as we have already said, a serious limitation of this typology is the disregard for horizontal interactions.

A. Grandori and J. Soda approaches the classification of networks from the standpoint of the concept of marketing and identifies four forms of network interaction.

Internal market networks.In this model of interaction, various departments of one organization, endowed with relative autonomy, carry out operations with other internal departments and external agents, satisfy their needs based on market conditions, but act on the basis of general policies and principles adopted in this corporation. R. Akrol writes that the internal network is intended to replace hierarchically subordinate relationships within the company with direct network exchange relationships, and the key to the effectiveness of such networks is their culture of cooperation, which implies the free movement of technology, knowledge, information and people between the departments of the company. This allows you to quickly focus on solving a strategically important problem at the right time. It is easy to see that this form of network interaction, like the internal network in the classification of R. Miles and Ch. Snow, is not a form of interfirm cooperation.

Vertical market networks(vertical market networks) are defined as an industry-specific supply and distribution channel around a "classic" manufacturing company. Partnerships in direct supply or distribution channels are built around a focal organization. The strong position of the focal company compared to other agents in the network allows it to coordinate and control value creation activities in a specific market.

Intermarket networks(intermarket networks) according to R. Akrol are in principle similar to the Japanese keiretsu described in the previous lecture. As we said, the keiretsu were created around a powerful bank that provided financing for the group's companies and virtually excluded the possibility of their hostile takeover by other market participants. However, R. Akrol believes that intermarket networks can be grouped not only around one large financial structure, but also on the basis of a trading or manufacturing company.

Opportunity networks(opportunity networks) are temporary formations around a specific project for a customer (consumer). This largely coincides with the understanding of dynamic networks as defined by R. Miles and Ch. Snow. R. Akrol believes that such a network specializes in collecting information about the market and providing this information to all agents of the network. At the center of such a structure is often a marketing organization that monitors customer needs and ensures customer communication with potential suppliers of products and services, negotiates, coordinates projects, regulates product standards and exchange rules between network participants. In fact, this network is designed to provide the end consumer with all the variety of products and services that he needs.

W. Siegert and L. Lang solve another problem, which was not posed by either Hinterhuber-Levin, Akrol, or Miles-Snow — they classify in terms of the size of the companies participating in the network. They identify three approaches to the development of network organizations [Siegert, Lang, 1990].

• Large enterprises expand through the creation of external branches and joint ventures, transferring to them some of their competencies, but retaining key ones. One enterprise remains a strategic leader, while other partners are economically and legally dependent.
• Small and medium-sized firms, each focusing on specific competencies, can offer their services to large companies and become part of their network. At the same time, they can interact with a large corporation both as suppliers and as partners of a different kind.
• The network is formed by small and medium-sized firms using either an internal or external network coordinator (broker) as an integrator.

This typology covers a significant part of the network forms known from empirical observations. However, in our opinion, there are forms that do not fit into it. In addition, not all of these forms can be categorized as intercompany without hesitation.

M. Castells and de Man propose to distinguish four groups of inter-firm networks based on criteria such as form of management (polycentric, equal, heterarchie), degree of dominance, or focal (dominance of one partner or a group of partners), stability (unstable or stable). The characteristics of the four groups are as follows.

° Project networks(Projektnetzwerke) focal and unstable. This is one of the well-established forms of cooperation between companies in the construction industry; there are many examples of the use of this form of cooperation in film production.

° Strategic networks(Strategische Netzwerke) differ a high degree of dominance of one partner and stability; for example, supplier networks created by large auto producers.

° Virtual enterprises(Virtuelle Unternehmen) polycentric and unstable; there are quite a few of them in the field of informatics and consulting.

° Networks - alliances(Verbundnetzwerke) polycentric and stable; they are well suited for transport markets (eg German carrier associations (Verkchrsverbiinde)).

Thus, significant differences between focal and polycentric networks are revealed here. In focal networks, coordination occurs in a largely hierarchical manner through a central partner, both at the strategic and operational levels. To do this, the focal partner uses plans and programs that he has a strong influence on. When choosing partners and placing orders with them, the focal firm usually uses pricing mechanisms or negotiations. The coordination tasks are assumed by the network broker, who, as a rule, established focal partner. In polycentric networks, the dominant coordination tool at the strategic level is the alignment of the interests of network partners, complemented by price mechanisms / negotiation when choosing a partner. Coordination at both the strategic and operational level is supported by a coordinator who is usually stands out from the circle of partners.

Based on this approach to classification, a group of German scientists led by S. Klein described five main types of networks in terms of several criteria. One of the ways to support small and medium-sized businesses in Russia is to stimulate the development of innovative infrastructure, that is, the creation of such organizations as technoparks, technopolises, business incubators, business accelerators, centers of youth innovative creativity and other organizations. “The innovation infrastructure provides comprehensive support for scientific and technical activities and includes: technology incubators, technoparks, information networks, expert and consulting bureaus, patent services, financial support institutions, a developed stock market, a risk insurance system and other specialized organizations. In world practice, such structures are combined into national and international networks of innovative development (IDN) ”[Rodin 2013, p.81].

In the early stages of business development, entrepreneurs have limited resources and opportunities to successfully build and promote their businesses. For this reason, some startups become residents of business incubators, which provide support from the seed stage to the transition to the maturing stage after the start. “Incubators are at the beginning of the innovation chain - at the stage of project development and development and are becoming an important means of solving innovative problems” [Pogrebova, Taneeva 2009, p. 178]. Typically, business incubators provide premises for startups, access to equipment, consulting services in various areas, assist in the search for startup funding, and also conduct various trainings and training courses for entrepreneurs, etc.

In Russia a classic university business incubator is “a structure (an independent economic organization with the rights of a legal entity, a structure within a technopark or a university subdivision), specializing in creating favorable conditions for the emergence and effective operation of small innovative (venture) firms that implement original scientific and technical ideas ... This is achieved by providing innovative firms with material, information, consulting and other necessary services " [Ratner, Filatova 2011, p.2].

“One of the popular measures to support small businesses - the creation of business incubators - emerged in Great Britain in the 50s of the twentieth century. Currently, there are about 300 business incubators with an annual turnover of $ 17 billion (in Russia, the annual turnover of business incubators is $ 3 billion) "[Khastieva 2013; P.128]. In Russia, the first business incubators began to be created in the early 90s of the last century, a little later than in other developed countries such as the United States, the European Union, etc. “By 1995, only 13 business incubators were created in Russia ... They were opened thanks to grants from the USA and Canada and participation in the Morozov project ”[Ivaschenko, Fedorova 2011; P.16]. According to the unified information and analytical portal of state support for innovative business development, according to the innovation map of Russia, at the beginning of 2016 there are 196 business incubators in Russia.

At the moment, in Russia there are a large number of various information and analytical Internet portals that actively publish various information about the innovation infrastructure, various facts and trends in business and innovation, startups, and business incubators in particular. Among the main ones are such portals as Rusbase, RVK OJSC, RAIR and others. However, there are practically no fundamental scientific publications based on empirical economic and sociological research on Russian business incubators, and in particular on formal and informal networking in business incubators, in contrast to studies on foreign business incubators, of which there are a large number. For a better understanding of what opportunities and benefits a business incubator provides, what features network interactions in business incubators have and how they are built, how they affect the development and maintenance of entrepreneurial activity, as well as to form and substantiate the main tasks and assumptions of this study , you should first refer to the works of foreign researchers.

However, it should be understood that Russia has specific socio-cultural characteristics, in comparison with other developed countries, as well as the methods of development and maintenance of innovative business activities differ in Russia and in countries with Anglo-Saxon and continental European traditions. In Russia, practically no one is engaged in the promotion of entrepreneurship, although for the sustainable economic development of the country, it is necessary to popularize entrepreneurship and explain the main aspects of entrepreneurial activity, but since this exists in a single quantity, young people do not seek and are afraid to start doing business [Oleinik 2016]. One of the tasks of a business incubator is to teach young startups the basics of entrepreneurial activity, to teach them not to stop at an unsuccessful project, not to be afraid of competition, but to test new hypotheses and move and develop further. However, in foreign incubators, unlike Russian ones, this task is on the periphery, and the main task is precisely to establish social interaction between residents and other market participants, as well as to develop and maintain a social network of a business incubator; it is networking that can help startups in the early stages of development get the necessary resources in a cheap and fast way. There is a prejudice in Russia that entrepreneurial success is the result of success or connections, not hard work; and failure in business will only bring a reputation as a “loser”, not a useful experience [Chepurenko 2012, p. 103]. At the same time, if foreign methods for the development of startups (for example, Lean Startup) can be applied in Russian realities and work successfully, then the question of how network interaction takes place in the incubator, what benefits it brings to residents, remains open and relevant.

It cannot be said that the approaches to the study of networking in business incubators, as well as the results of these studies, in all likelihood, can be comparable in Russia and abroad. However, these differences are less significant when it comes to theoretical approaches to analysis.

In the context of the transition of the world economy to post-industrial development, the process of the formation of a network structure is growing, when rigid hierarchical structures are everywhere superseded by flexible network structures, and economic systems gradually acquire a cluster structure instead of the traditional sectoral structure. Dynamic network interactions are viewed as a necessary institutional environment for an innovative type of growth based on continuous updates.

The main feature of the modern information society based on digital technologies, noted M. Castells, is not so much the dominance of information as such, but the network logic of its use. By this circumstance, he emphasized the organic connection between the new technological paradigm and the formation of a network structure, when the organization of the economy and society is based on network information flows, network structures and network interactions.

In accordance with his vision, the modern economy spontaneously transforms into a networked system and thus becomes a "continuously flowing space of flows", acquiring the ability of continuous updates. So, in the most developed countries such technological structures dominate, which are based on the widespread use of network information technologies, promising means of computing and telecommunications. At present, the information paradigm determines the network character of all institutions of the “new economy”. Institutionally, the complication of the structure of systems is associated with the emergence of a new way of coordinating ties and harmonizing interests.

Signs of the formation of a network structure began to appear already in the 1990s, in particular, in the form of an increase in turbulence. One of the first works on this topic, published by K. Kelly, entitled "New Rules for the New Economy: Twelve Interrelated Principles of Survival in a Turbulent World," argued that every business will ultimately obey the logic and economics of networks.

Historically and logically, the formation of the network structure of international business is based on a complex dialectical unity of the two processes. On the one hand, with the development of productive forces, the establishment, strengthening and complication of connections between different types of labor, spheres of activity, etc. On the other hand, there is a division of labor, specialization deepens, new spheres of economic activity, branches, sub-branches, etc. appear and stand apart. These two processes are organically interconnected and complement each other. Each of them, in turn, is a complex process occurring at various levels of the economic system: micro-, macro-, meso- and mega-levels.

According to foreign researchers, economic contacts between business entities are carried out interactively through direct communication through websites. The emerging information (networking platforms) of Internet companies are replacing traditional resellers and accelerating the exchange of information during a commercial transaction. The new (direct) level of cooperation between the producer and the consumer allows achieving the realization of the economic interests of both parties through the creation of an online economic environment and the development of various nodes of the global economic network. Moreover, the post-industrial system of economic relations, in contrast to the industrial economy, makes it possible to accelerate and achieve continuity in updating the species composition of the created goods and the effects of diversity ( economy of scope), which was previously constrained by mass production of the same type of products and economies of scale ( economy of scale). In these conditions, there is a displacement of hierarchical structures of management of self-controlled network systems built on horizontal links and continuous coordination. In modern economic literature and practice, such interactive network interactions are called collaboration.

Nowadays, the processes of displacing hierarchies by network structures are already acquiring a massive and irreversible character, revealing themselves at all levels of economic ties. In the course of the global crisis, a powerful impetus in development is being formed and a new model of the company, a new model of markets, a new model of managing the national economy and a new system of world order *. So, since the 2000s. the world began to spread more and more multi-local network companies, built not on centralized control, like a classic multinational corporation, but on the collaboration of many independent organizations and civilians, including consumers, suppliers, partners and direct competitors. This decentralized business organization model dramatically reduces production and transaction costs as the risks, rewards, competencies and resources associated with new projects are spread across a global network of contractors.

The clustering process has become ubiquitous in modern conditions, allowing to structure the relationships of all subsystems in the global market space, occupying an intermediate position between the market and the hierarchy. As a hybrid design, clusters have open boundaries for attracting new members, a flexible internal structure and the ability to quickly reconfigure, and they are well integrated - around a joint project idea and coordinating network platforms.

According to American analysts, the global trend of an increase in the number, economic power and political influence of cross-border networks of all types was clearly marked in 2016, and by 2025 the world will change beyond recognition. The shift in the influence of sovereigns proceeds in three directions: outward - to non-sovereign players (informal networks of government officials, international business communities, NGO alliances), downward - to local levels (to intrastate regions) and upward - to the level of international organizations and transboundary macroregions.

Today it is becoming an objective reality that the post-industrial globalized world is not just a multipolar one, but multidimensional network space, where the relationship of hegemony and habitual subordination is absent. In this super-dynamic environment, new structure-forming links are emerging: transnational network alliances - instead of sovereign states and trans-industry cluster networks - instead of industrial sectors. Further clustering of the world economy will lead to the formation of even more powerful network systems operating across the borders of countries and territories, which will eventually deform the political world order: instead of regions as administrative entities, regional network communities will emerge, united by a joint project idea.

Scientific ideas about modern clusters have developed under the influence of several areas of economic thought and are very different. The most accurate interpretation can be obtained from works related to the school of M. Porter. Moreover, here one should rely not so much on the concept production clusters (industrial clusters), introduced by Porter in 1990 as an element of the "diamond model" as of his later studies, beginning in 1998. Based on the innovative effects observed in Silicon Valley, Porter proposes to consider clusters in three dimensions.

First, how spatially localized structures, having a territorial coverage that can vary from one region or city to a country or even several neighboring countries.

Second, how a non-hierarchical network of individuals, firms and related organizations from various institutional sectors (research centers, government agencies, other institutions). All of these players are grouped in a specific area of \u200b\u200bbusiness and are linked to each other through various economic and knowledge transfer channels. Porter emphasizes that successful clusters are not hierarchical structures, but are “matrices of fluid and overlapping relationships” between participants.

Third, Porter analyzes clusters as a section of a special business environment, where the players act on the principles of commonalities and complementarities so that their closeness to partners "increases the frequency and significance of their interactions along the lines of both cooperation and competition."

Initially, Porter's theory did not reveal either the mechanism of their formation or their organizational structure. Therefore, in the 1990s. the notion of "cluster" was considered mainly as a narrow analytical structure (one of the four facets of the "diamond"), and the emergence of cluster networks - as a result of the natural evolution of the market space, not associated, according to Porter's views, with any purposeful efforts of the authorities.

However, in the 2000s. leaders of various countries and territories isolated the cluster idea from the "diamond model" and transformed it into a multifunctional tool of practical policy, considering clusters as object of purposeful creation - both on the part of market participants (putting forward cluster initiatives) and on the part of the state (cluster policy and the formation of cluster programs). They began to put forward strategic projects to create world-class clusters (especially in emerging sectors), trying to replicate the design of successful growth poles like Silicon Valley.

The most applicable in world practice are two large varieties of the cluster - special industrial agglomerations and special network ecosystems. Globalization of the world economy in the last quarter of the XX century. created conditions for the formation of global companies and for the replacement of local self-sufficient production networks with global value chains, which horizontally permeate sectors and countries, ensuring the growing diversification of world production.

As a result, the creation of local production network nodes in different territories, which are clusters with a significant advantage - the deepening of the international division of labor. The organizational design of clusters is, as a rule, groups of companies from several industries, which, thanks to network openness, rely on a dynamic combination of local and global resource flows, which provides glocalization of resource turnover. Circulating flows of financial and physical capital have global mobility, flows of social capital are tied to the landscape of the territory (the formation of network connections largely depends on the specifics of the local business climate), and flows of human capital have mixed mobility. Cluster networks in an innovative economy have the form shown in Fig. 5.2.

Figure: 5.2.

The specificity of resource turnover makes clusters a unique mechanism that localizes globalized production at the level of individual territories and thereby gives it the necessary orderliness, forming a modern model of stratification of economic systems.

Compared to the industry model, it provides finer diversification of production, generating highly specialized regions (spatial diversification) where are located highly specialized sectors (structural diversification based on groups of related industries).

The formation of clusters that flexibly respond to changing market needs allows regional economies to consistently deepen their specialization, focusing on new and more sophisticated types of activity (a process called sophistication). Such economies quickly master unique, one-of-a-kind production competencies and acquire unique comparative advantages (in terms of quality, cost, or special properties of the product being created), which fundamentally increases their investment attractiveness. As a result, the territories where clusters appear successfully attract global investors, which helps them to penetrate global networks and fit into the situation of global competition.

At the same time, clusters play a critical role in improving the competitive position of investors coming to the region themselves. International companies, which today outsource the overwhelming majority of their operations, receive sustainable competitive benefits from being able to flexibly combine the geography of factors of production. By placing resources and business functions in specialized clusters throughout the world, these players try to choose for each functional task exactly the cluster where it is most efficiently solved. Moreover, the international competitiveness of companies now depends not so much on their individual comparative advantages or on the advantages of their country of origin, as on how in which specific regional cluster of the world these companies locate their facilities. Moreover, in order to enter the cluster and take advantage of its dynamic network environment, leading multinational and transnational corporations are transforming into mobile multi-local companies, consisting of many functionally interconnected but legally independent firms of all sizes.

Modern clusters are considered the most favorable structure for generating interactive innovations based on collective actions precisely for the reason that they cover a wide network of independent agents of various profiles (sectoral, functional and institutional) who mutually support each other in the course of collaboration. The innovative nature of modern clusters is determined not by their cutting edge specialization, but by their unique institutional design. Based on the spiral model, it is in stark contrast to the design of other types of industrial agglomerations (Figure 5.3).

An example is the Italian "industrial districts" (200 agglomerations of small and medium-sized firms), which have been producing since the 1970s. the lion's share of Italian exports. Another example is the Japanese financial and industrial groups "keiretsu", which in the 1970s-1980s succeeded. bypass the vertical American holdings in the global automotive and electronics markets. Although such agglomerations with a broad reliance on small and medium-sized businesses are often referred to in the literature as industrial, or industrial, clusters, they are very different from innovation ecosystems that use collaboration mechanisms.

Figure: 5.3.Design evolution of industrial agglomerations: achieving synergy 2

Full-fledged clusters designed for an innovative type of growth receive an impetus for development only in the post-industrial era.Their competitive advantages are associated not only and not so much with the territorial proximity of the participants, but with their functional interdependence and complementarity.

For example, in Scandinavian countries, only those associations that have developed a triple helix are considered innovative, and they can be formed both in the newest sectors (say, the life sciences sector) and in traditional ones (for example, the forest industry). On this principle, Silicon Valley spontaneously develops in the United States, on it, according to the software version, the transnational biotechnological cluster ScanBalt BioRegion in Northern Europe has been successfully built, and both megaclusters are organized as branched networks of networks.

The rush of Silicon Valley has been powered by several networking platforms that have propelled its development along a triple helix. Multilateral partnerships of universities, companies, inventors, individual entrepreneurs and other organizations have made the valley a world center, first for engineering, then for microelectronics, semiconductors, computers and, finally, ICT. Today, a powerful innovation ecosystem has formed here, self-governing through network associations of various players. It successfully attracts innovators from all over the world (in 2010, 30% of startups were created by immigrants) and is the epicenter of numerous venture projects (40% of US venture capital investments). By the beginning of the current decade, clustering in the leading countries of the world covered about half of the economy, and more than 100 countries and regions of the world had one or another version of cluster policy based on the Porter concept.

Russia joined this hundred in June 2012, having formed the List of pilot programs for the development of innovative territorial clusters, which, based on the results of a competitive selection, included 25 cluster projects with high scientific and technical potential (most of them are being implemented in territories that already have special benefits - in science cities, closed administrative territories, special economic zones). Although the Russian government intends to support these regional projects with considerable budgetary funds, the prospects for the formation of dynamic innovation clusters in the country are rather weak. In the conditions of Russia, the problem is not only that the selected clusters are actually created by a decision "from above", i.e. their models and specializations have not passed the preliminary "market testing" that the Porter school insists on. Worse, the organizational structure of clusters is "tied" to the industrial type of growth, ie. at best, protoclusters of a production type may appear in the country, despite the proclaimed innovativeness of the structures being created.

Thus, the realities of the post-industrial society are such that the state can no longer cope alone with the management of complex systems operating online, which raises the question of the maximum socialization of the management system in the form of "pluralism of functions, and not one political power" or, according to Drucker, about the transition of nations to "pluralism of autonomous organizations based on knowledge."

Porter also speaks of the same functional pluralism, noting that the modern management model "makes economic development the result of a collaboration process involving various levels of government, private companies, educational and scientific institutions, and public organizations."

The pioneers of post-industrial transit, who have managed to advance further along the path of forming a network economy and a network society, are scandinavian countries. Their technological breakthrough and advanced competitive positions in a number of the latest production areas are provided primarily by the fact that they have become world leaders in terms of socialization of management, the development of national innovation systems and the degree of informatization of society. In the network maturity ranking, along with Sweden's absolute world leadership, three other Scandinavian countries (Finland, Denmark and Norway) entered the top seven in 2012, ahead of even the United States.

The formation of a network structure is not only a challenge, but also an opportunity. The global spread of network structures allows economic systems to develop in leaps and bounds, due to internal reconfiguration, which opens up lagging economies objective historical chance for an innovative breakthrough - even with an unfinished industrial base and an unfinished market transformation.

• Castells M. Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. M.: GU HSE, 2000.
• Muravyov V.A. Information in international business: author. dis .... cand. economic sciences. M., 2003.
• Kelly K. New Rules for the New Economy: Twelve Dependable Principles for Thrivingin a Turbulent World // Wired. 1997. No. 5.
• Smorodinskaya N.V. Change of the paradigm of world development and the formation of network economy // Economic sociology. T. 13. No. 4. URL: www.ecsoc.hse.ru
• Katukov D.D., Malygin V.E., Smorodinskaya N.V. The institutional environment of the globalized economy: the development of network interactions. Moscow: Institute of Economics, RAS, 2012, p. 8.