The essence, goals and objectives of modern innovation policy in the system of state and municipal governance

Abstract

The study reveals the essence, goals, and objectives of modern innovation policy in state and municipal governance, interpreting it as ecosystem management of knowledge flows from research to implementation. The goal is the operationalization of the priorities of technological sovereignty and quality-of-life improvements through coordinated legal, institutional, and financial measures. The novelty lies in the integral interpretation of the national innovation system and the triple helix as a practical framework for aligning the interests of government, science, and business at various governance levels. The relevance is determined by challenges such as raw material dependence, technological gaps, and development imbalances. Materials and methods are based on the analysis of legal acts and strategies, official statistics, as well as the synthesis of concepts by Freeman, Lundvall, and Etzkowitz-Leydesdorff. A systemic and comparative approach is applied, along with dynamic series, structural and correlation analyses to assess funding, patent activity, and expenditure structures. Content analysis of documents identifies declared goals and instruments, while comparisons of regions and municipalities highlight factors of efficiency at the local level. The results record a persistent imbalance in funding between state and municipal levels of about 27.5:1 with similar growth rates, confirming hyper-centralization and the limited agency of municipalities. Patent activity is concentrated in the Central and Volga federal districts with higher success rates, while the North Caucasus and Far Eastern districts lag behind. In expenditure structures, the share of R&D and software resources is growing, but investment in human resources training stagnates at around 3,2-3,3%, creating a risk of low absorptive capacity in the economy. Comparison of municipal programs reveals uneven effectiveness and a weak link between local outcomes and the volume of top-level funding, depending instead on the quality of local governance and the presence of growth points. The discussion emphasizes the need to shift from a paternalistic model to a polycentric network configuration with expanded powers for regions and municipalities. Proposed measures include: a standardized system of goals and metrics, redistribution of support in favor of human capital and digital transformation, stimulation of private investment, development of co-financing mechanisms and regional venture instruments, as well as a unified knowledge-sharing platform. Conclusion: sustainable effects are possible through coordination of financial, institutional, and human resource policies within the logic of the triple helix.