The Paradigm of Public Administration in the Era of Technological Sovereignty Formation: From the Mobilization Model to the Ecosystem. Part 1. Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

Technological sovereignty has become a central concept in Russian science and technology policy since 2022, but its regulatory interpretation as a static state does not account for the objective patterns of the innovation cycle and institutional inertia. The article aims to substantiate a dynamic model of technological sovereignty as a mechanism for the adaptive management of three types of innovation cycle gaps and for the transition from a mobilization paradigm to an ecosystem paradigm, taking into account identified empirical patterns. Based on the analysis and systematization of Russian regulatory legal acts (Decrees No. 83, No. 664, No. 660, Resolutions No. 353, No. 603, No. 1478, the Concept of Technological Development until 2030, the Strategy for Scientific and Technological Development of the Russian Federation), the structural characteristics of the mobilization governance model are identified and its systemic contradictions are revealed. It is substantiated that the mobilization model is effective for short-term closure of critical niches, but creates a structural imbalance in favor of the state’s roles as customer and moderator to the detriment of the architect and strategist roles. The author’s concept of technological sovereignty as a process of adaptive management of three types of innovation cycle gaps is proposed. It is concluded that absolute sovereignty is unattainable and that managed competition and cooperation are necessary in the context of nootransformation as a transition to an economy and society based on the development of intellectual and creative activity.

1. Afanasev A.A. (2023) Technological Sovereignty: Variant Approaches. Voprosy innovatsionnoy ekonomiki. Vol. 13. No. 2. P. 689–706. DOI: 10.18334/vinec.13.2.117375

2. Barr S.H., Baker T., Markham S.K., Kingon A.I. (2009) Bridging the Valley of Death: Lessons Learned from 14 Years of Commercialization of Technology Education. Academy of Management Learning & Education. Vol. 8. No. 3. P. 370–388.

3. Bodrunov S.D., Dmitriev N.D. (2025) Labor Migration as an Indicator of the Development Trend of the Political Economy Category Of “Labor” in the Theory of Noonomy. Noonomika i nooobshchestvo. Al’manakh trudov INIR im. S.Yu. Vitte. Vol. 4. No. 4. P. 67–89. DOI: 10.37930/2782-618X-2025-4-4-67-89

4. Dementiev V.E. (2024) Technological Sovereignty and Economic Interests. Zhurnal institutsional’nykh issledovaniy. Vol. 16. No. 3. P. 6–18. DOI: 10.17835/2076-6297.2024.16.3.006-018

5. Etzkowitz H., Leydesdorff L. (2000) The Dynamics of Innovation: From National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix Of University–Industry–Government Relations. Research Policy. Vol. 29. Is. 2. P. 109–123. DOI: 10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4

6. Etzkowitz H., Zhou C. (2018) The Triple Helix: University-Industry-Government Innovation and Entrepreneurship. London: Routledge.

7. Kleinknecht A. (1987) Innovation Patterns in Crisis and Prosperity: Schumpeter’s Long Cycle Reconsidered. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

8. Leišytė L., Fochler M. (2018) Topical Collection of the Triple Helix Journal: aAgents of Change in UniversityIndustry-Government-Society Relationships. Triple Helix. Vol. 5. DOI: 10.1186/s40604-018-0056-6

9. Markham S.K. (2002) Moving Technologies from Lab to Market. Research Technology Management. Vol. 45. P. 31–42. DOI: 10.1080/08956308.2002.11671531

10. Mensch G. (1975) Das technologische Patt: Innovationen überwinden die Depression. Frankfurt am Main: Umschau Verlag.

11. Perez C. (2002) Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital: The Dynamics of Bubbles and Golden Ages. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

12. Potaptseva E.V., Akberdina V.V., Ponomareva A.O. (2024) The Concept of Technological Sovereignty in the State Policy of Contemporary Russia. AlterEconomics. Vol. 21. No. 4. P. 818–842. DOI: 10.31063/AlterEconomics/2024.21-4.9

13. Rimskaya O.N., Anokhov I.V., Kranbikhler V.S. (2021) Human Capital in Industry 4.0. Present and Future. Ekonomika nauki. Vol. 7. No. 4. P. 275–289. DOI: 10.22394/2410-132X-2021-7-4-275-289

14. Scalia M., Barile S., Saviano M., Farioli F. (2018) Governance for Sustainability: A Triple-Helix Model. Sustainability Science. Vol. 13. P. 1235–1244. DOI: 10.1007/s11625-018-0567-0