Innovative Activity as a Factor of Anti-Crisis Development in the Conditions of State Support (On The Example of Naberezhnye Chelny)

Author Name(s): Ekaterina V. Krotkova, Aminova R. Mullamekhametovna
Author Email:


This paper deals with the features of innovative development within the framework of anti-crisis management. The problem of managing organizations in crisis conditions is most relevant today, while effective anti-crisis management should bring the organization to a new level of development. Innovations are relevant with timely anti-crisis management, a shortage of resources allows using effectively state support and conditions that make it possible to implement changes. The methodological basis of the study is a dialectical method of cognition and a systematic approach to the analysis of the studied facts and phenomena. Methods of analysis used in various combinations at each stage of the study, depending on the purpose of the study and the problems examined, contributed to the increase of the reliability and validity of the conclusions made by the author. The results of implementation of the programs of state support of small business in the Republic of Tatarstan of the Russian Federation, in particular in the city of Naberezhnye Chelny, are analyzed. Based on the analysis, the main problems arising in the implementation of state programs are outlined. It is emphasized that the implementation of state support programs for small and medium-sized businesses is an important factor in the innovative development of enterprises and the overall economy of the region. Such a conclusion allowed for a comparative analysis of two innovative sites of the Krai Innovative Platforms “Master” and Business Incubator in Naberezhnye Chelny. The paper substantiates the necessity of the subsequent monitoring of enterprises that have received state support.


Anti-crisis management occupies an increasingly important niche in management theory and practice, as the problem of effective management in a multi-factor dynamic environment and uncertainty that contributes to crisis phenomena grows worse. The problem of managing organizations in crisis conditions is relevant for today’s Russia, and management faces the challenge of ensuring the sustainable functioning and development of organizations in the long term under recurring crises [1].

Some sources see the crisis as “… an extreme aggravation of intra-production and socio-economic relations in the internal environment of the organization, as well as relations with the external environment; state of destruction of the existing system of parameters of its activities” [2].

Accordingly, an effective anti-crisis management should bring the organization to a new level of development. According to Zakharov V. Ia., the main function of the crisis is the destruction of the least stable and viable elements [3].

In the economy, the crisis destroys many of the weakest and least expediently organized enterprises, eliminating obsolete methods of production, forms of organizing enterprises in favor of more modern ways and forms. Schumpeter spoke of “creative destruction”, understanding it as “the process of industrial mutation, which continuously reconstructs the economic structure from within, destroying the old and creating new one” [4]. According to the results of the research conducted by Cornell University (USA), INSEAD Business School (France) and the World Intellectual Property Organization in 2016, Russia ranks 43rd among 128 countries, having improved its position by five points as compared to the previous year [5]. At the same time, researchers at the Higher School of Economics, Gokhberg, Rud, point out that the effectiveness of innovation activity of the country is significantly weaker, which reflects a lack of effective implementation of the available innovative potential [6].


The main factor of crisis management is innovation, which is designed to bring the socio-economic system to a new level. At the same time, the introduction and development of innovations require

certain investments that have a long-term effect, but in the short term are associated with increased costs, which in turn is a problem in times of crisis. One way to solve this problem is to provide state support to economic entities. Granting favorable conditions for doing business by the state in order to increase the efficiency of activities, as research has shown, is a lenient factor rather than stimulator of innovative development and increased efficiency. Thus, innovative development, which is a factor in anti-crisis activities in the context of state support, is not effective enough and requires state control measures [14].


  1. Anti-crisis management: College textbook / Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, State University of Management; Ed. E.M. Korotkov – 2nd ed., revised and corrected. – M.: “Infra-M”, 2009. – p. 620.
  2. Kochetkova A.I. Fundamentals of management in chaos (uncertainty) / A.I. Kochetkova. – M.: Rid Grupp, 2012. – p. 624.
  3. Aminova R.M. The importance and role of control in anti-crisis management. // Kazan economic bulletin. No.3 (11), 2014. – p.26.
  4. Joseph A. Schumpeter. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, The Economic Journal 53. – 1943, – p.382
  5. Innovation towards a knowledge-based economy. TenYear Plan for South Africa (2008–2018). Department of Science and Technology. – № 114538 – CapeTown, 2007. – 34 p.
  6. Ltonid Gokhhberg and Vitaly Roud, How to Design a National Innovation System in a Time of Global Innovation Networks: A Russian Perspective, National Research University – Higher School of Economics. Electronic resource:
  7. Orekhov V.I., Baldin K.V., Orekhova T.R. Anti-crisis management: study guide. – 2nd ed., revised. – M.: INFRA-M, 2013. – p. 267.
  8. Ramstad E. Organizational view to innovation systems and policy in four European countries, in: Inken Gatermann, Myriam Fleck (Hg.): «Innovations fähigkeit sichert Zukunft. Beiträge zum Zukunft sforum Innovations fähigkeit des BMBF». – Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, 2010. – p. 153-164.
  9. Aminova R.M. Evolution of control in the management system // Economics and Entrepreneurship. 2017. No. 2-2 (79-2). p. 1215.
  10. Development of small and medium-sized business in the Republic of Tatarstan for 2011-2013 (Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Tatarstan No. 1151 of 30.12.2010), Youth Entrepreneurship in the Republic of Tatarstan for 2012-2016 (Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Tatarstan No. 628 of 25.07.2012), etc.
  11. Krotkova E. V., Mullakhmetov K. S., & Akhmetshin E. M. (2016). State control over small business development: approaches to the organization and problems (experience of the Republic of Tatarstan, the Russian Federation). Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 15(1), 15-21.
  12. Sadriev R. D., Mullakhmetov K. S., Krotkova E. V. & Gabaidullina L. A. (2016). Introduction of Lean Production at Russian Enterprises: Perspectives and Problems. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues. 6(S8), 39-48.
  13. World Economic Forum. The Global Competitiveness Report 2014–2015. [Electronic resource]. – Access mode:
  14. Mullakhmetov, K. S., Aminova, R. M., & Akhmetshin, E. M. (2014). Control in a management system in modern conditions. Asian Social Science, 10(24), 237-247.


366 total views, 2 views today

Download PDF File

About the author: admin