The article 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 aim is to operationalize the priorities of technological sovereignty and quality-of-life improvement through coordinated legal, institutional, and financial measures. The relevance is determined by resource dependence, technological gaps, and territorial imbalances. The scientific novelty lies in the integral interpretation of the national innovation system and the «triple helix» model as a practical framework for aligning the interests of government, science, and business. The empirical base includes analysis of regulations and strategies, official statistics, and comparison of regional and municipal programs. A systemic and comparative approach is applied, along with time-series data, structural and correlation analysis for assessing funding, patent activity, and the structure of innovation expenditures. Content analysis of the documents makes it possible to align declared goals and instruments used with actual outcomes. Effectiveness is assessed through aggregated indicators and integral measures of motivational and institutional well-being at the local level. A persistent funding imbalance of about 27.5:1 between the state and municipal levels has been identified, despite similar growth rates, which indicates hyper-centralization and limited agency of municipalities. Patent activity is concentrated in the Central and Volga Federal Districts, while the North Caucasus and Far Eastern Districts are lagging behind. The share of R&D and software expenditures is growing within the cost structure, while investment in human resource training stagnates at around 3,2-3,3%, which reduces the economy's absorptive capacity. Comparison of municipal programs demonstrates heterogeneous effectiveness and a weak relationship between local outcomes and the amount of higher-level funding. Interpretation of results supports a shift from a paternalistic to a polycentric network model with expanded authority for regions and municipalities. Proposals include a standardized system of goals and metrics, redistribution of support in favor of human capital and digital transformation, incentives for private investment, co-financing and regional venture instruments, as well as a unified knowledge-sharing platform. Limitations are related to data availability and interregional comparability; future prospects include longitudinal assessments of causal relationships and testing the model on sectoral cases. Additionally, the necessity of transparent coordination across governance levels and alignment of goals with budgeting is substantiated. This will increase implementation predictability.