Skip to main content
Log in

The Role of Interindustry Integration in Economic Growth: Theoretical and Strategic Implications

  • Published:
Studies on Russian Economic Development Aims and scope


This article is a continuation of the paper “The Uneven Development Paradox of the High-Tech Sector Amid Comparable Economic Growth in the EU and the United States” published in the previous issue of the journal, and it examines the theoretical and strategic implications of the previously obtained results. These results show that the role of integration of traditional industries in Europe is underestimated: economic growth is stimulated not only by (high-tech) industry specialization, but also by the integration of (traditional) industries. The data obtained are placed in the context of the theory of varieties of capitalism by Hall and Soskice. Particular attention is paid to the problem of high-tech development of the EU; it has been established that the high-tech industry of the EU produces products that are less attractive to traditional industries and consumers in the EU than abroad.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. Sectoral structure of R&D expenditures in the EU15 in the period of 1995–2005 remained fairly stable: SB—28%; SS—28%; SI—36%; SD—8%, while in the United States, relative R&D expenditures increased in SB (from 29 to 42%) and SI (from 28 to 30%) industries and decreased in SS (from 25 to 20%) and SD (from 19 to 9%) industries [see 19]. Thus, in 2005, the United States spent 14% more on research and development in the SB industries than the EU, while the EU spent 14% more on SD and SI.


  1. S.N. Rastvortseva and A. B. Amanalieva, “Analysis of national innovation systems based on the method of technological proximity,” Zh. Ekon. Teor. 17 (4), (2020).

  2. K. Yu. Voloshenko, T. E. Drok, and Yu. Yu. Farafonova, “Economic complexity at the subnational level – an innovative paradigm of regional development,” Vopr. Innovatsionnoi Ekon. 9 (3), 735–752 (2019).

  3. L. M. Gokhberg, T. E. Kuznetsova, and V. A. Rud’, “Analysis of innovative regimes in the Russian economy: Methodological approaches and first results,” Forsait 4 (3), 18–30 (2010).

  4. E. V. Sumina, “System of indicators for assessing the effectiveness and level of development of innovative processes in the regional economy,” Approbatsiya, No. 2, 214–216 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  5. S. P. Glinkina, On the Issue of the Diversity of Models of Capitalism, or what We Have Built as a Result of Transformation: Report (Institute of Economics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 2016) [in Russian].

    Google Scholar 

  6. C. A. Hidalgo, B. Klinger, A. L. Barabási, and R. Hausmann, “The product space conditions the development of nations,” Science 317 (5837), 482–487 (2007).

  7. C. A. Hidalgo and R. Hausmann, “The building blocks of economic complexity,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106 (26), 10570–10575 (2009).

  8. P.A. Hall and D. Soskice, Varieties of Capitalism: the institutional foundations of comparative advantage (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. E. Bartelsman, J. Haltiwanger, and J. Scarpetta, Microeconomic Evidence of Creative Destruction in Industrial and Developing Countries (World Bank, Washington, 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  10. P. Klimek, R. Hausmann, and S. Thurner, “Empirical confirmation of creative destruction from world trade data,” PLoS One 7 (6), 1–9 (2012).

  11. P. L. Robertson and P.R. Patel, “New wine in old bottles: technology diffusion in developed economies,” Res. Policy 36 (5), 708–721 (2007).

  12. C. M. Christensen, and M. E. Raynor, The Innovator’s Solution: sustaining and creating successful growth (Harvard Business School, Boston, MA, 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  13. US Department of Labor, 2015.

  14. US Department of Labor, 2015.

  15. E. Kirner, S. Kinkel, and A. Jaeger, “Innovation paths and the innovation performance of low-technology firms—an empirical analysis of German industry,” Res. Policy 38 (3),447–458 (2009).

  16. P. Moncada-Paternò-Castello, C. Ciupagea, K. Smith, A. Tübke, M. Tubbs, “Does Europe perform too little corporate R&D? A comparison of EU and non-EU corporate R&D performance,” Res. Policy 39 (4), 523–536 (2010).

  17. C. Schneider and R. Veugelers, “On young highly innovative companies: Why they matter and how (not) to policy support them,” Ind. Corporate Change 19 (4), 969–1007 (2010).

  18. R. Veugelers and M. Cincera, Young Leading Innovators and the EU’s R&D Intensity Gap. Bruegel Policy Contribution 2010/09 (Bruegel, Brussels, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  19. A. Leiponen and I. Drejer, “What exactly are technological regimes? Intra-industry heterogeneity in the organization of innovation activities,” Res. Policy 36 (8),1221–1238 (2007).

  20. EU Commission (EC). Horizon 2020. 2014.

  21. K. Pavitt, “Sectoral patterns of technical change: towards a taxonomy and a theory,” Res. Policy 13 (6), 343–373 (1984).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Z. A. Mamed’yarov.

Additional information

Translated by S. Avodkova

See Studies on Russian Economic Development. 2021, vol. 32, no. 5.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mamed’yarov, Z.A. The Role of Interindustry Integration in Economic Growth: Theoretical and Strategic Implications. Stud. Russ. Econ. Dev. 32, 656–661 (2021).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: