Summary

The task before Georgia is to develop and implement state innovation policy adequate to modern conditions. In this regard, it is useful to study the experience of developed countries in the formation of its goals and objectives. In connection with the growing crisis in the 1990s and later, the aggravation of international competition in the context of globalization and other circumstances, many developed countries have undergone a serious transformation of the principles of formation and mechanisms for implementing state innovation policies, which has also manifested itself in the transformation and development of its goals and tasks. This article set the task of formulating and substantiating the system of goals and objectives of state innovation policy that is adequate to modern trends of innovative development, taking into account the experience of their transformation in developed countries.

Innovation policy, innovative "agenda" is becoming increasingly important as a definite alternative to the obsolete economic theories of the 20th century and as a concept capable of providing an adequate response to today's global challenges, especially the increasing financial and other crises, the need to improve efficiency in the face of increasing global competition. At the same time, its content, goals and objectives, mechanisms (systems, strategies, instruments) have been constantly improved over the past twenty years, subject to revision, transformation and supplementation as a reaction to newly emerging circumstances. The most significant additions to the system of goals and objectives of innovation policy, which we substantiated in the main part of the article and reflected in the goals and objectives presented at the end of the article, are: 1) Borrowed innovations (new technologies) that in all countries, except for the United States, play a predominant role. And that is why the task of "assisting the private sector in creating systems ensuring the adaptation and continuous improvement of borrowed production technologies and manufactured products" is included in the system of main goals and tasks of the state innovation policy. 2) An important objective of innovation policy is the need for its coordination (harmonization) with regional, social and, above all, industrial policies. The most successful experience of such harmonization has been achieved in France and South Korea, where the corresponding territorial entities have been created. In France, these are the poles of competitiveness, and in South Korea - actually industrial clusters in the South Korean manner within the "4 + 9" project, the strategies for which are developed by the National Council on regional innovations, which included representatives of enterprises, research institutes, universities and non-governmental non-profit organizations from each province, that is, this Council uses the mechanisms of interaction between the state, science and business, which are characteristic of the national innovation model built on the principle of a triple helix. 3) Another innovation that emerged in the first decade of the 21st century is the emergence of innovative clusters. Innovative clusters are the same industrial, but complemented by components of the innovation constituent (organizations and enterprises engaged in research and development, transferring technologies that promote the introduction and adaptation of innovative technologies in production, as well as other components of innovation systems). The creation of innovative clusters should be approached with caution, since failures in the implementation of cluster policy in view of the ill-conceived approach to their creation have significantly exceeded the number of those projects that were successfully implemented. 4) In the system of goals and objectives of innovation policy, we have introduced the goal of "identifying opportunities for creating and facilitating the creation of enterprises based on new production technologies in demanded sectors of the economy". Assistance can take as direct forms, for example, state participation in the created enterprise in the form of public-private partnership, and indirect, for example, in the form of granting tax preferences to start-ups.