The path of catching and the path of innovative development: what will Russia choose?


Over the past half century, global GDP growth has been exceptionally rapid, helped by significant labor force growth and increased labor productivity. Employment growth from 1964 to 2014 decreased from 1.7 to 0.3 % per year. Over the past 20 years, overall productivity growth in OECD countries has also slowed significantly. However, the introduction of digital technology is already changing the picture for the better in developed countries. Therefore, achieving the desired economic growth is seen in increasing labor productivity through the active development and implementation of key technologies of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, but with the need to effectively redistribute existing resources within countries, both developed and developing. As a hypothesis, the thesis was put forward on the need for scientific and technological development as the main answer to the challenges of our time with the aim of further growth and development of the Russian economy. However, the study proved that in modern conditions the main solution for Russia is a more efficient distribution of existing factors of production and, as a result, economic activity. At the same time, further technological and innovative development is necessary from the point of view of long-term economic growth, since the catch-up path has its own logical limit.

About the authors

Elena B. Zavyalova

MGIMO University

Author for correspondence.

PhD, Head of the Economic Policy and State-Individual Partnership Department

76 Vernadskogo Ave., Moscow, 119454, Russian Federation

Ekaterina I. Shumskaia

MGIMO University


PhD, leading lecturer of the Economic Policy and State-Individual Partnership Department

76 Vernadskogo Ave., Moscow, 119454, Russian Federation


  1. Aghion, P., Bloom, N., Blundell, R., Griffith, R., & Howit P. (2005, May). Competition and Innovation: An Inverted-U Relationship. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(2), 701–728.
  2. Andrews, D., Criscuolo, C., & Gal, P. (2016). The Best versus the Rest: The Global Productivity Slowdown, Divergence across Firms and the Role of Public Policy. OECD Pro- ductivity Working Papers. No. 5 (p. 3). Paris.
  3. Aptecman, A. (2017). Digital Russia: A new reality (p. 43). McKinsey Digital.
  4. Balaji, A. (2018). How predictive analytics can boost product development (p. 5). McKinsey & Company.
  5. Berlingieri, G. et al. (2018). Last but not least: laggard firms, technology diffusion and its structural and policy determinants (p. 10). OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation.
  6. Bessen, J. (2015). Learning By Doing: The Real Connection Between Innovation, Wages and Wealth. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press.
  7. Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies (p. 5). W.W. Norton.
  8. Comin, D., & Hobijn, В. (2010). An Exploration of Technology Diffusion. American Econo- mic Review, 100, 2031–2060.
  9. David, P.A. (1990). The dynamo and the computer: An historical perspective on the modern productivity paradox. American Economic Review, 80(2), 355–361.
  10. Dobbs, R. (2015). Global growth: Can productivity save the day in an aging world? (p. 60). McKinsey Global Institute.
  11. Gal, P. (2019). Digitalisation and productivity: In search of the holy grail. OECD Economics Department Working Papers. No. 1533 (p. 4).
  12. Ivanova, O.V. (2018). O nekotoryh instrumentah finansovoj podderzhki GChP-proektov v mirovoj praktike: rekomendacii dlja Rossii [On some tools of financial support of public – private partnership projects in world practice: recommendations for Russia]. Economics and management: problems and solutions (p. 5). (In Russ.)
  13. Pichkov, O.B. (2019). Vlijanie processov cifrovoj transformacii na mirovuju jekonomiku [International economic relations: reality, challenges and projects]. MGIMO University. (In Russ.)
  14. Rodrik, D. (2018). New technologies, global value chains, and developing economies (p. 13). National Bureau of Economic Research.
  15. Sorbe, S., Gal, P., Nicoletti, G., & Timiliotis C. (2019). Digital dividend: policies to harness the productivity potential of digital technologies. Economic Policy Paper No. 26 (p. 7). OECD.
  16. Syverson, C. (2013). Will history repeat itself? Comments on ‘Is the Information Technology Revolution Over?’ International Productivity Monitor, 25, 20–36.
  17. Aljarboua, Z., Santhanam, N., Teulieres, M., Thomsen, J., & Tilley, J. (2019). Industrial robo- tics: Oppor-tunities for manufacturers of end effectors (p. 5.). McKinsey & Company.

Copyright (c) 2019 Zavyalova E.B., Shumskaia E.I.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies