A miracle is possible

On the last day of 2009, President Dmitry Medvedev created a working group led by Vladislav Surkov to create a “separate complex for researching research”. Surkov told Vedomosti what would happen in this complex, how to create an innovative economy and as economic modernization is combined with political.

* * *

- How was the idea of ​​creating a Russian Silicon Valley born?

- First of all, President Dmitry Medvedev put forward the idea. She was supported by the Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. It has long been discussed by a variety of people. There has long been a discussion, whether to create centers where a creative, intellectual environment, engineering, scientific, commercial will be localized. Many nations have experience in creating scientific and technical complexes. The USSR and its successor to Russia have its own history of the development of such centers. Science -hacks, Akademgorodka were built. At some stage, they fulfilled their function, in some of them a unique environment and a unique population has still been preserved in their own way. There are potential in a number of places, and they work very productively. Their work will continue to be paid. However, today it is necessary to create new objects that will be completely different both externally and in economic, social, cultural dimensions. When Soviet centers were built, they were advanced in everything. There was a certain exclusivity. Everyone who got there knew that he was the best and was among the best that he is in the zone of increased attention, they expect a lot from him, his work is dignifiedly paid, he moves the country forward. All these parameters are needed today. It is necessary to say such a place where people could say all this to themselves. But from modern positions. And of course, we cannot talk about any closed cities. On the contrary, the new complex will be as open as possible, international, if you want a cosmopolitan, social environment.

- There is a state program for the development of technology parks. A lot has already been created, some are considered successful. They don't suit you?

-Something happened, something is not very good. There are no big results yet. In some places there will definitely not be - instead of technology parks, ordinary office centers formed, just real estate, no movement. There are separate outstanding scientists. There are interesting inventions. But on an economic scale, this is nothing. We must give innovative activities a statistically significant character so that our economy becomes the economy of the third wave. So that at least the sector arises a significant innovative in our economy. Development institutions have been created - Rusnano, a venture company, etc., - they have exactly the same tasks. But their work either only unfolds or is not well -fabricated.

- Maybe the necessary tax regime has not been created?

- The Ministry of Finance showed on the modernization commission that there have been preferences for a long time - customs, tax. In principle, a lot of things can be added. But much is already there. The same coefficient of 1.5 for tax deductions for R&D expenses. This benefit is significant, operates in many countries. But for some reason it doesn't work for us. Moreover, until recently, no one even bothered to check if it works.

- Why doesn't it work?

- You can’t mechanistly transfer other people's recipes to our soil. When we took this problem, we found that there was not enough the main element. Everything seems to be like people. There are many correct foreign words: startup, venture, transfer, incubator, commercialization, etc. There is no short Russian word - demand. Who benefits? Who needs it? Throughout the world, the demand for innovation is determined by the state and large corporations. If they need - that is, someone to work for. Universities, small venture enterprises, venture capitalists, scientists, inventors, patent bureau, engineering centers, laboratories - the entire innovative system. Which, by the way, has not yet developed yet. But without demand, it will never work out. So you need to start with the creation of demand, with the order. For no one, the new technology is not an argument in the competition or the only opportunity to survive on the market. Companies dominate the raw materials, but people who have become rich and super -rich made a state not on new ideas and technologies, like Gates, Edison, but on the division of property jointly acquired by the Soviet people. I say this without emotion, I worked in business myself. They are not customers, do not risk for creating new technologies. There is no buyer who will say: 'I take!' The invention is no one to carry. And the state cannot act as a universal customer.

- But in the military-technical sphere it is such.

- Yes, the military department is trying to order something new. But the state as a whole is not yet able to even formulate a qualified order. After all, the innovative culture is not to answer the question correctly, but to ask a question that no one asked you before. This is the forward movement - the statement of new questions. And not the search for answers to questions, well -known. This is a change in the type of consciousness, in fact the next stage of civilization. And the raw material state, like the raw material corporation, has no drive. For what? I exchanged a bucket of oil for a bottle of vodka - and rest. In the 1920-1930s There was an energy of fear. The Bolsheviks were at least afraid, they fought with the whole world, they piled up the superpower with fear of fear and created albeit not a perfect, but impressive weapons system, made Russia an industrial country. A post -industrial society with a fright will not arise. We need positive creative energy. Her extraction from society is the task of new policy.

- Maybe the problem is the lack of competition, now wherever you look in the Russian market - everywhere monopolies.

- We have a competition. Only different competitions are different. You can compete in who will bribe more officials and withdraw more money to offshore. And you can create unique ideas, ultra -modern extraordinary technologies. You can be more cunning, or you can - smarter. No need to exaggerate the meaning of competition as such. There should not be too much competing systems: it reduces the quality of competition. Several competing parties are better than 150. If the market is fragmented to small cooperatives, there will be no demand for innovation. In addition to competition, vanity and big goals are needed. Oil today does not end. But once this will happen, the hydrocarbon era will end, and the Western oil companies, understanding this, invest money in alternative energy, are already thinking about maintaining the dominant position in the energy supply market. They have ambition, there is an excitement of competition.

- What exit is applied to Russia?

- Try to form qualified demand. What we will do now. Almost manually, unfortunately. The formation of such demand is possible reintegration of bureaucracy and business. The previous era was a revenge of the bureaucracy for the situation of the 1990s. The business felt somewhat pushed away from real problems. There was a fair process of dismissing business from the authorities, because in no case can you mix these functions. But now it is possible to unite state and business forces in constructive cooperation for the common good. On some state corporations we will not pull it out, although the state corporations will do this in the first place. But business is also interested in this: for him this is a way to harmonize his relationship with society. It is necessary to quickly tighten the overall technological level and at the same time create elements of an innovative economy.

- That is, to engage in innovation and modernization at the same time?

- That's right. We have constant confusion with these concepts. Innovation is something that has never been. They say to me: and in America? I answer: there was no in America. We want, as I call it, an organic order for innovation. The state can only be a stimulating element, a means of compulsion to innovation. Companies should not perceive this as a quitter, tithe. Let them do what they consider useful primarily for themselves. Developments will bring income to them and will remain with them. Let each large company choose its direction and create a cluster and there will be such relations that will give rise to an innovative product and lead to its commercialization. Meanwhile, the complex will be built.

- We correctly understand: the appearance of such clusters is the first step towards the creation of a "territorially separate complex"?

- Yes, these are such models for assembly. Some part of this base can be located on the territory of existing universities, companies, and institutions. Not even the entire university, but one laboratory can integrate into such a cluster. This does not require large capital costs. But they, of course, will be required where the need to build new objects will arise. As a result, it can survive a little - for example, 10 projects suitable for transplanting to the newly created complex. The obtained economic forms and matrices can then be used to replicate your own, not book experience of innovation.

“But there is a risk that no one will survive?”

- Eat. After all, we are talking about the subtlest processes, the emergence of unique groups. In the 60s. Scientists suggested that certain physico-chemical conditions on Earth from which life arose once were created. In laboratory conditions, they mixed nitrogen, oxygen, water, something there are still in the same proportions as then, they did the same pressure and began to pass through this mixture electric discharges, imitating lightning. They expected that this would lead to the formation of amino acids, and then to life. It did not work, although all the necessary elements for the emergence of life were provided. The miracle did not happen. The emergence of great ideas, as well as life, is still considered a miracle. Of course, there are no miracle workers among officials and businessmen, but together we must create circumstances in which a miracle is possible.

- What are these circumstances, what are the initial conditions for the emergence of an innovative miracle?

- 1. Insolence. Faith and will.

2. Demand. And that means money. In our case, on the part of large state and private companies representing "traditional", "conservative" industries, in which, by the way, there is also a place for an innovative "feat".

3. Universities, academic institutes. The acquisition of the latest experimental equipment. The knowledge of our scientists, engineers, students.

4. Mandatory - foreign universities, scientists, engineers, teachers, companies.

5. Increasing the density of the highly intellectual population. Collection of the best and better in one place.

6. Ultra -modern architecture and design. Household comfort.

7. Absolute security and openness.

8. Special tax regime. The indulgence of the overseeing organs is at least for a while. A little mess. Creative, of course.

9. Money again. Co -financing by the state (in particular, development institutions). On a free basis, including.

10. It is very important - the first success story. The first billion rubles, dollars, euros earned at the technological transformation of traditional industries. Or to create a new industry. Then the matter will go so that not to stop.

- Why are three foreigners included in the working group?

- This is done on my suggestion. We thus show that this can be quite patriotic. A signal for everyone - for science and for business. They talk a lot about the return of our scientists. Beautiful, but unreasonable. We must take the best here, and our or not ours are the tenth business. If we are somewhat iconic names known in our professional environment, I will involve the doors to us, it will show that here you can and should be, that we are interested. This is very important for Russia.

“But maybe it would be better for her image if there were simply no stories as with Hermitage Capital, but earlier with BP?”

- Of course, we have many problems. Our political image is not perfect, terrorist attacks occur. And what, China is unequivocal? Is there no terrorist attacks in India? Yes, there are, but foreigners work there, there are serious innovative projects. And most importantly - they have energy, ambitions of elites, excitement. We also need to start this mechanism of excitement and interest in life.

- How will you lure them?

“They themselves will say what they need.” It remains only to fulfill. We need a new "German settlement". We critically need a higher culture of production, technology and research - along with its living carriers.

- How do you see this new settlement? Something like Akademgorodka?

- Some insist that it be the city. But I don't think so. Rather, this is a center where people live temporarily. Around him, of course, it may arise as many villages. Just if we start building the city, then all the real estate will quickly disperse among our, some friends of members of the working group (joking), and a wonderful new “island of fantasies” will arise, but innovation will not arise. Silicon Valley began with a rental of premises for high -tech companies. If this section were immediately sold or allowed anyone to rent, everything would end in nothing. The project should be economically attractive, including for private investors. But he should not become a space for elite housing, where they go with rottweilers and drive Hammers, scaring the population. There should be creative, mainly scientists, entrepreneurs, mostly young people. And the architecture, of course, should be the corresponding - the architecture of the new century, while convenient and functional. Taking this opportunity, I want to invite readers of Vedomosti to come up with a name and design our Silicon Valley by crowdsourcing, or, as they said earlier, "folk construction". Send your ideas, plans, concepts to the newspaper website. We will all study them. The best in a generalized form will form the basis of the project, which will be approved at the highest level.

- The region is chosen?

- Different regions are discussed, many believe that they need to be built somewhere in the near Moscow region. Here, nevertheless, the potential is both scientific and technical and financial. But there are other interesting options - Vladivostok, for example.

- Will the land have to rent? How great will the territory be?

- The federal land has been preserved. There are sites that were at the disposal of state banks as a result of the crisis. We will strive for the state this part of the project to cost almost nothing. The area of ​​the territory is discussed, there are different offers. Including radical - up to several thousand hectares. I look at it more restrained.

- The president’s disposal says: financing from budget funds for 2010-2012. And from which article - can’t you tell me?

- In the budget-2010 10 billion rubles. It was allocated additionally on the purpose of modernization and innovative development. Half will go to specific, already agreed projects. And more than 4 billion rubles. We left for further distribution. I expect that while the center is physically not, we will co -financing the innovative projects of the companies. In the spring, their list will be determined. Part of this amount by the end of the year (I hope that by that time the terms will be formed) we will be able to direct to the development of the project of the complex itself.

- Will the creation of clusters be conducted as part of the five presidential areas of modernization or can others arise?

- We will adhere to these five. Fortunately, they are quite wide. For example, we are talking about energy efficiency, but we are talking about supporting energy in general. It’s even good that only five priorities are determined. In past years there were 150, 170 of them. These are not priorities. And even now, when only five were named, it was extremely difficult at the first stage to force the departments, recipients of budget money, to take them into account in their budget planning. We have an amazing political culture. Here, they say, a vertical. We also have some kind of incompetent, non-automated one. Priorities are declared. Well, be kind, regroup money. Nothing of the kind. Thanks to Sergey Semenovich [Sobyanin]. He is lucky for his problems. Now Vladimir Vladimirovich personally headed the innovation commission. The case is going on.

- And will the applications be collected only by the largest companies whose heads were at a meeting of the commission in Tomsk? Or wider?

- Mostly they, although they are more wider. It is necessary to start with those who have the largest companies under control, because all over the world the largest corporations and the state are customers of innovation. And no one else. Whoever composes what about the capabilities of small enterprises. Small innovative enterprises grow either near a large university (such as the University of Stanford, Massachusetts Technological Institute, MIT), or next to a large corporation, and more often at the junction of both. Sometimes they turn into giants, but always begin here. At the seminar on modernization in MIT [where high -ranking Russian officials came for two days] we saw that from state expenses on fundamental science, the most goes to agriculture, where only the interests of private business, and not at all for space and military developments, where customers are NASA and the Pentagon. One of my colleagues asked: out of $ 1.2 billion a year that MIT receives, how much does the state invest? I probably hoped to hear that $ 200 million, no, $ 200 million is a company, and the state is $ 1 billion.

- Did you hear something new for yourself at the seminar at MIT?

- No, because all this is written in the books. But sometimes it is important to feel the atmosphere itself. Therefore, I want to go to a private company, raw materials first of all. For example, in BP. In order to say to my comrades later: they do it, why can't you? One of our businessmen once said at a meeting: our industry is not innovative. But later he showed me a project to create a truly innovative product.

- Do not be afraid that your "city of the Sun" will be called adventure?

- They will call. And we will argue. First of all, questions may arise where to take money and why spend so much. Of course, these are tens of billions of rubles of state investments and the same number of private investments. But I believe that this should be done, because today the Russian economy is like an old armored train without a locomotive. People with computers and ties and glamorous ladies are sitting on it, and his armor was almost showered, and he himself slows down the move. A little more - it will get up completely. The liberal hopes for the invisible hand of the market did not justify themselves. It is wonderful that someone is building a new lounges at the Soviet metallurgical plant, but this is not a step forward. This is maintaining your own income at the subsistence level. Задача технологического развития - в том числе задача политическая. Старая экономика не сможет дальше всерьез улучшать жизнь людей. Мы находимся на пределе наших возможностей по социальному обеспечению населения, в ситуации, когда общество работает с очень низким КПД. А если мы не сможем давать людям рост доходов, люди начнут скучать и огорчаться. Три наших ближайших соседа - Китай, Евросоюз и Америка. Мы оказываемся вакуумом между быстро растущими гигантами. Просто по закону физики произойдет то, что произойдет. Модернизацию можно осуществить довольно быстро. But this is an expensive thing, like democracy, which is affected only by a rich society. Бесплатной модернизации не бывает. Это должны понять и население, и власти на всех уровнях. Придется переформатировать финансовую политику. Стерилизовать излишки денежной массы - дело веселое и нехитрое. А вот где взять эту самую массу, когда ее не хватает, когда нефть подешевела, - вот это проблема, у которой нет приятного для всех варианта решения.

- Как и для инновационной экономики?

- А тут даже деньгами завали - не поможет: это органический процесс. Нельзя демократию вырастить за три дня (хотя некоторые вас уверяют, что можно). Нельзя ребенку разом стать взрослым. Чтобы появились какие-то островки, очаги инновационной экономики, нужно 10-15 лет. Стэнфорд существовал долгое время, прежде чем возникла (причем во многом случайно) Кремниевая долина. Быстро не получится переделать наш бронепоезд во что-то современное, быстроходное и ходящее не только по рельсам. Когда я слышу, как ораторы говорят: перевести экономику на инновационные рельсы...

- Может, лучше сказать - на монорельс...

- ...от такого словосочетания не по себе становится. Да и слово "модернизация". Хорошо, конечно, что оно стало таким модным. Но уже и в щи его, и в кашу. Уже все модернизировали. Скоро будем валенки модернизировать. Не заболтать бы. Нужно заниматься конкретными проектами и под них подстраивать институты, а не наоборот. В 1990-е институты создавали по книжкам. Не получилось, не заработало. Как глупо говорить, что все китайцы на одно лицо, так нельзя говорить, что и все экономики, и все демократии на одно лицо. Во Франции одна экономика и демократия, в Германии - другая, в Англии - третья. Книжные схемы не работают в такой стране, как Российская Федерация с ее специфическими чертами. Кавказа нет в других странах, нет ни в Англии, ни в США.

- И все-таки не считаете ли вы, что для экономической модернизации нужна и политическая? Что невозможен экономический прорыв без серьезного ограничения бюрократии и создания конкурентной среды в политике?

- Тут идет спор по существу, фундаментальный. Есть у нас школа, которая учит, что политическая модернизация, под которой подразумевается политическая распущенность, "можно все", - это ключ к модернизации экономической, первая предшествует второй. There is another concept that I adhere to. Which considers the consolidated state as an instrument of the transition period, an instrument of modernization. Some call it authoritarian modernization. I don't care, as they call it. Спонтанная модернизация - это культурный феномен (именно культурный, а не политический), и была она достигнута только в англосаксонских странах. Not in France, not in Japan, not in Korea. There, modernization was made by conducting methods. Девяностые в России показали: само по себе расщепление общества не рождает позитивную энергию. Yes, it releases some energy, but what is it spent on and where does it lead? Мы увидели, что само по себе ничего не случилось. И общество вынуждено было вспомнить о государстве. Далеко ли зашел период реакции? Я еще несколько лет назад сказал, что централизация находится на пределе возможностей. You can’t do it anymore.

- Стало быть, надо меньше? Пора раскручивать гайки?

- При чем тут гайки? Надо демократические институты развивать, а не гайки крутить туда-сюда. Я не только по должности, но и по своим взглядам поддерживаю президента: да, надо усложнять политическую систему. It is necessary that more degrees of freedom occur in it. But it is necessary to do this very carefully, in a gradual regime, without losing the consolidation of power. Консолидированная власть в России - это инструмент модернизации. And I dare to assure you, he is the only one. If you want to let the whole thing itself and wait until a new economic miracle will arise from the squabbles of liberals, you will never wait, I guarantee it. Будет необыкновенная пестрота в парламенте, место для дискуссий будет везде - в администрации президента, в правительстве. We all went through. Когда один чиновник говорит одно, другой - другое. Потому что один работает на одну корпорацию, а другой - на конкурирующую. Если снова будет разлад, раздрай и разнос, если будет украинизация, никому и в голову не придет что-то в России вкладывать и растить. Под шум и треп о "свободе" вынесут последнее. Можно, конечно, взболтать и посмотреть - а вдруг получится. Есть такой шанс. Но по теории вероятности один из 100. При таких шансах я не играю. Так играть, так ставить мы не можем. Государство отвечает за целостность общества. За жизнь и здоровье людей. Не мои слова, так в Конституции. Как бы нам ни хвалили некоторые перестройку, но, начиная с Вильнюса, Тбилиси, Ферганской долины, Карабаха, это была кровь людей. Не говоря про Чечню, про Дагестан до сих пор. Это все еще коллапсирует старая система. Умирает и перерождается, сочась кровью. Мне кажется, главная задача демократического общества - беречь людей. Protect each other. Не колошматить друг друга по поводу и без, а беречь. Минимизировать риски гибели людей. Я не говорю, что сейчас нужна сверхцентрализованная власть. Нужна консолидированная, которая контролирует ситуацию.

- Но разве этому мешает появление большего числа сильных партий?

- В Америке система двухпартийная. Do you reproach it for insufficient liberalism? Who said there should be many parties? In the USA there was a period when for 40 years in a row (from 1954 to 1994) in the House of Representatives the majority were held by the Democrats. There is no democracy, no development?

- Но президент при этом был из другой партии...

- Пятьдесят лет в Японии у власти была одна партия - не было развития? Yes, they developed so that we never dreamed. And in the 1990s. We did not develop. Yes, a bunch of people developed. And she became almost Europeans. And the rest? Остальных - их большинство! - пришлось вытаскивать из бедности в нулевые годы, тупо возмещая им убытки, которые они понесли в прошлом десятилетии. Or take Sweden: for 70 years there was one party in power. There is no development in Sweden?

- То есть вы удовлетворены нынешними демократическими институтами в России?

- Нет конечно, никто не удовлетворен. Но я хочу также напомнить: безудержная критика демократических институтов - это естественный признак демократии. This is not I said, but one famous European political scientist. If they criticize democracy in Russia, then it is. If there are protests, then there is democracy. В тоталитарных государствах протестных акций не бывает. Да, мы нуждаемся в критике, понимаем, что система глуховата к критике, недостаточно восприимчива. Мне самому многое не нравится. Президент больше любой оппозиции делает для борьбы с коррупцией, отсталостью, для развития политической системы. Но говорить о том, что политическая система, существовавшая в 90-е при Борисе Ельцине, которого я уважаю, в администрации которого я, кстати, работал (придя туда, когда никто туда особенно не рвался), но говорить, что эта система больше соответствует задачам модернизации... Это такая ложь! Да Борис Николаевич и выдвинул-то Путина потому, что надо было остановить распад страны. Он же и сам видел, что система не работает. А теперь работает, хотя и скрипит иногда.

- Но, может, хотя бы сигнал дать, показать перспективу: сейчас модернизируем только экономику, но потом - допустим, через 20 лет - возьмемся и за политику.

- А это само собой. И не через 20, а немедленно. Но не резко. Оба послания президента реализуются в этой части. Со временем в России, как и везде, будут две доминирующие партии и еще несколько других - это я сказал много лет назад. При этом "Единая Россия" имеет все шансы снова победить и в 2011 г. Почему бы и нет? This is useful for modernization purposes. The system must be adapted to a changing, complicated society. But this does not mean that we should refuse the system. It must be preserved. And do not let in what can destroy it. This system is not separated from the people, as it seems to someone, it is deeply rooted in social fabric. Anyone who wants to destroy it is socially dangerous. Критически важно сохранять политическую стабильность. Stability does not mean stagnation, does not mean a stop. This is a development tool. Из хаоса модернизация не получится. Не факт, что второй приступ распада Россия вообще переживет. Хотя точно так же не переживет она и отсутствие развития.

* * *

Как это было в США

Кремниевая долина (в обиходе - Силиконовая), названная так по материалу, из которого изготавливают полупроводники, появилась в связи со строительством на территории, принадлежащей Стэнфордскому университету (Калифорния), комплекса офисных зданий Stanford Research Park, помещения в котором университет сдавал в аренду высокотехнологичным компаниям.

Комплекс был построен в 1951 г. по инициативе профессора Фредерика Термана, в то время декана инженерного факультета Стэнфордского университета, одного из создателей компании Hewlett-Packard. Первыми арендаторами комплекса стали компании, связанные с бурно развивающейся отраслью электроники: Varian Associates, Hewlett-Packard, Eastman Kodak, General Electric. Вместе с правом на аренду они получили возможность напрямую общаться с исследователями, студентами и выпускниками Стэнфорда. Арендаторы технопарка сыграли ключевую роль в развитии полупроводниковой микроэлектроники. Сейчас Кремниевой долиной называют регион общей площадью 4800 кв. km. В нем расположено 150 крупнейших компаний и около 3000 мелких предприятий. Работает 1,32 млн человек, их средняя зарплата - $75 390 в год.

Иностранцы в группе Суркова

Эстер Дайсон - учредитель EDventure Holdings, начальный инвестор Flickr, del.icio.us и других высокотехнологичных компаний. Доминик Фаш - региональный директор Enel по России, участвовал в создании первого технопарка во Франции Sophia Antipolis. Свен-Тор Холм - гендиректор Lundavision AB, участвовал в создании шведского Ideon Science Park.

Беседовали Максим Глинкин, Наталья Костенко

Источник: http://www.vedomosti.ru/newspaper/article.shtml?2010/02/15/225543