Russia’s technological sovereignty: regional capabilities and risks of implementing projects in priority areas

S. P. Zemtsov (), M. V. Ivanova () and R. I. Semenova ()

Economics of Science, 2026, vol. 12, issue 3

Abstract: Achieving national technological sovereignty requires sectoral and spatial focus. The study aims to identify Russian regions where domestic capabilities are concentrated and external risks are lower for implementing projects in the 12 priority areas of the technological sovereignty taxonomy. To assess regional production and technological capabilities, we propose an original method for estimating the territorial localization of enterprise resources required in each priority area – labor, capital, and technology – while considering the availability of innovation infrastructure. The estimates show that Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Moscow Region concentrate resources in all 12 priority areas; the Republic of Bashkortostan in 9; the Republic of Tatarstan and Nizhny Novgorod Region in 7; and Samara, Chelyabinsk, and Tula Regions in 5. In total, 37 regions are identified as leaders in at least one area. External risks are assessed using import-dependence indicators. Before 2022, about one-third of Russia’s total imports consisted of products in priority areas supplied by countries that subsequently restricted exports to Russia. Dependence on imports from unfriendly countries was particularly high in pharmaceuticals (87.3%), especially in Moscow and Bashkortostan; shipbuilding (85.6%), particularly in Primorsky Krai; and the automotive industry (70%), primarily in Tatarstan and Kaluga Region. Many leading regions remain vulnerable to tighter sanctions. At the same time, less import-dependent centers have been identified where sectoral clusters cover the full chain from specialist training and technology development to production. Examples include Moscow in complex engineering, Bashkortostan in the chemical industry, Perm Krai in engine manufacturing, and Nizhny Novgorod Region in shipbuilding. The findings suggest territorial priorities for federal technology policy and potential vectors of smart specialization and diversification for individual regions. The paper concludes with recommendations for strengthening technological sovereignty through improved strategic goal-setting, human-capital development, and stronger incentives for business investment in new technologies.

Date: 2026
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://ecna.elpub.ru/jour/article/viewFile/554/354 (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:abz:journl:y:2026:id:554

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Economics of Science from Delo Publishing house
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Ð ÐµÐ´Ð°ÐºÑ†Ð¸Ñ ().