R&D Blended Financing to Ensure Technological Security: Problems and Prospects

The relevance of this study is supported by the fact that the achievements of modern research are beginning to change the nature of sovereignty, strengthening the role of the technological component. This, in turn, requires updating the sources of R&D funding. The aim was to investigate the impact of public, private and blended financing on R&D, both in world practice and in the Russian context in an inextricable connection with the formation and preservation of state sovereignty, including technological sovereignty. It has been shown that the basic models of research and development (R&D) financing, focused exclusively on public or private sources, are insufficient in modern conditions. This necessitates the search for and justification of new approaches to funding. Research methods: a) are based on classical ideas about the role of R&D in shaping economic growth and, consequently, ensuring state sovereignty, including with regard to technological security; b) include an assessment of current R&D dynamics, including in the context of different countries. The results of the study indicate that R&D financing models are largely influenced by the historical path taken by each country. The historical and evolutionary generalization of the key paradigms for R&D financing has allowed us to identify the following models: the linear model, the system model, the triple helix model, mission-based models, unified landscape models, and ecosystem development models. The presented models allowed us to identify the advantages and disadvantages of blended financing for two types of models. It has been shown that blended financing can be both organizational and financial structuring. It has been concluded that, despite the development of approaches to attracting private capital, the state remains the “early-stage investor” that assumes the majority of risks. This allows it to strengthen its role in achieving technological security goals (especially with the linear model). It has also been shown that blended financing can be used to ensure investment attractiveness for private investors, accelerate market recognition, including the “reach out” of technologies. It has also been proven that blended financing schemes do not impose restrictions on achieving technological security, but rather require control over the distribution of intellectual property rights.

1. Zeleneva E. S., Rizvanova I. A. Assessment of the state’s payment sovereignty. Finance: Theory and Practice. 2026;30(1):54-65. DOI: 10.26794/2587-5671-2026-30-1-54-65

2. Zuboff S. The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. New York, NY: Public Affairs; 2019. 704 p.

3. Mazzucato M. Mission economy: A moonshot guide to changing capitalism. New York, NY: Harper Business; 2021. 272 p.

4. Mazzucato M. Mission-o riented innovation policies: Challenges and opportunities. Industrial and Corporate Change. 2018;27(5):803-815. DOI: 10.1093/icc/dty034

5. Klepach A. N. The economics of technological sovereignty and welfare: Unity and controversy. Nauchnye trudy Vol’nogo ekonomicheskogo obshchestva Rossii = Scientific Works of the Free Economic Society of Russia. 2023;241(3):81-91. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.38197/2072-2060-2023-241-3-81-91

6. Medvedeva N. V. The format of public- private partnership in ensuring technological sovereignty. Journal of Monetary Economics and Management. 2024;(2):178-183. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.26118/27824586.2024.61.33.025

7. Glazunova V. V. Measuring technological development and sovereignty. Ekonomika nauki = Economics of Science. 2024;10(3):22-33. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.22394/2410-132X-2024-10-3-22-33

8. Stepnov I. M. Investment security and technological sovereignty: An ecosystem framework for the postglobalization economy. Vestnik MGIMO-Universiteta = MGIMO Review of International Relations. 2025;18(4):185206. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.24833/2071-8160-2025-4-103-185-206

9. Rubinstein A. Ya. Elements of the general theory of the mixed economy defects. Voprosy gosudarstvennogo i munitsipal’nogo upravleniya = Public Administration Issues. 2017;(1):71-102. (In Russ.).

10. Rastvortseva S. N., Amanalieva A. B. Applying the technological proximity method for the analysis of national innovation systems. Zhurnal ekonomicheskoi teorii = Russian Journal of the Economic Theory. 2020;17(4):781-788. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.31063/2073-6517/2020.17-4.3

11. Gorbach G. G. Evolutionary economic theory as a methodological basis for the formation of a strategy for the innovative development of the national economy. In: State administration of the Russian Federation: Challenges and prospects. Proc. 15th Int. conf “Public administration in the 21st century” Moscow: Moscow State University Publ.; 2018:143-148. (In Russ.).

12. Doroshenko S. V. The target responsibility principle as a basis for the institutionalization of relations between the state and business. Zhurnal ekonomicheskoi teorii = Russian Journal of the Economic Theory. 2015;(4):121-137. (In Russ.).

13. Istomina S. V., Lychagina T. A., Pakhomova E. A. The triple helix model: Development prospects in Russia. Natsional’nye interesy: prioritety i bezopasnost’ = National Interests: Priorities and Security. 2016;12(12):119-132. (In Russ.).

14. Romer P. M. Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy. 1990:98(5-2):S71-S102. DOI: 10.1086/261725

15. Solow R. M. Growth theory. In: Greenaway D., Bleaney M., Stewart I., eds. Companion to contemporary economic thought. Abingdon: Routledge; 1991:393-415. (Russ. ed.: Solow R. M. Teoriya rosta. In: Greenaway D., Bleaney M., Stewart I., eds. Panorama ekonomicheskoi mysli kontsa XX stoletiya. Vol. 1. St. Petersburg: The School of Economics; 2002:479-506. URL: https://www.seinst.ru/files/SolowEcGrowth.pdf).

16. Aghion P. Entrepreneurship and growth: Lessons from an intellectual journey. Small Business Economics. 2017;48(1):9-24. DOI: 10.1007/s11187-016-9812-z

17. Mayburov I. A. Fiscal incentives for innovation in foreign countries: An analytical review of positive and negative effects. Finansovyi zhurnal = Financial Journal. 2025;17(5):126-142. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.31107/2075-1990-20255-126-142

18. Dezhina I. G. The changing landscape of science policy in the context of the movement toward technological sovereignty. Upravlenie naukoi i naukometriya = Science Governance and Scientometrics. 2025;20(3):369-386. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.33873/2686-6706.2025.20-3.369-386

19. Ermolaev K. A., Kuzmin M. S., Lukishina L. V. Technological connectivity management as a new paradigm of financial support for the priorities of science and technology development. Finansovyi menedzhment = Financial Management. 2025;(12-2):592-598. (In Russ.).

20. Andreev V. N. Structuring the methodology of technological capital management of machine-b uilding companies in the context of ensuring the sovereignty of domestic industry. Ekonomika, predprinimatel’stvo i pravo = Journal of Economics, Entrepreneurship and Law. 2024;14(8):4463-4476. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.18334/epp.14.8.121149

21. Krupnov Yu.A., Silvestrov S. N. Technological sovereignty and diffusion of technologies. Vestnik Instituta ekonomiki Rossiiskoi akademii nauk = Bulletin of the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 2024;(2):31-48. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.52180/2073-6487_2024_2_31_48

22. Stepnov I. M., Lebedeva N. E. Transformation of the strategy for the development of the oil and gas sector in the context of sanctions. Ekonomicheskoe razvitie Rossii = Russian Economic Development. 2025;32(6):229-235. (In Russ.).

23. Grinberg R., Rubinstein A. Theory, innovations, and features of new economy in the dialogue with K. Arrow. Voprosy ekonomiki. 2010;(10):5-16. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.32609/0042-8736-2010-10-5-16

24. Freeman C. The ‘National System of Innovation’ in historical perspective. Cambridge Journal of Economics. 1995;19(1):5-24. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.cje.a035309

25. Matrizaev B. J. The study of specific empirical patterns of the influence of state macrofinancial policy on stimulating innovation activity within the framework of endogenous growth theory. Finance: Theory and Practice. 2025;29(2):194-207. DOI: 10.26794/2587-5671-2025-29-2-194-207

26. Hall B. H., Mairesse J., Mohnen P. Measuring the returns to R&D. In: Hall B. H., Rosenberg N., eds. Handbook of the economics of innovation. Vol. 2. Amsterdam: North-H olland; 2010:1033-1082. DOI: 10.1016/S01697218(10)02008-3

27. Goncharenko L. I. Tax preferences in the spatial development of the country: Terminological aspect of the study. Finance: Theory and Practice. 2024;28(4):108-121. DOI: 10.26794/2587-5671-2024-28-4-108-121

28. Grimsey D., Lewis M. K. The governance of contractual relationships in public-private partnerships. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship. 2004;(15):91-109. DOI: 10.9774/GLEAF.4700.2004.au.00010

29. Bush V. As we may think (an article that appeared in The Atlantic Monthly in 1945 predicting the electronic revolution). Journal of Electronic Publishing (JEP). 1995;1(2). DOI: 10.3998/3336451.0001.101

30. Vasilenko N. V. Technologies and organization- economical procedures of their commercialization in the modern economy. Fundamental’nye issledovaniya = Fundamental Research. 2016;(4-1):129-133. (In Russ.).

31. Romanov A. A. Paradigm shift in the development of innovative products: From disparate R&D to full-life cycle digital projects. Raketno- kosmicheskoe priborostroenie i informatsionnye sistemy = Rocket- Space Device Engineering and Information Systems. 2017;4(2):68-84. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17238/issn2409-0239.2017.2.68

32. Rykhtik M. I., Korsunskaya E. V. National system of innovation in the USA: Formation history, political practice, development strategy. Vestnik Nizhegorodskogo universiteta im. N. I. Lobachevskogo = Vestnik of Lobachevsky State University of Nizhni Novgorod. 2012;(6-1):263-268. (In Russ.).

33. Matrizaev B. J. The research of comparative characteristics and functional features of the co-integration of technological innovations and business activity and their impact on the formation of macroeconomic dynamics. Finance: Theory and Practice. 2023;27(6):31-43. DOI: 10.26794/2587-5671-2023-27-6-31-43

34. Etzkowitz H., Leydesdorff L. The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university-i ndustry-government relations. Research Policy. 2000;29(2):109-123. DOI: 10.1016/S00487333(99)00055-4

35. Dezhina I., Kiseleva V. “Triple helix” in Russia’s innovation system. Voprosy ekonomiki. 2007;(12):123-135. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.32609/0042-8736-2007-12-123-135

36. Stiglitz J. E., Greenwald B. C. Creating a learning society: A new approach to growth, development, and social progress. New York, NY: Columbia University Press; 2014. 680 р. DOI: 10.7312/stig15214

37. Chernykh S. I., Frolova N. D. Basic, applied and exploratory scientific research: Conceptual framework and financing problems. Upravlenie naukoi i naukometriya = Science Governance and Scientometrics. 2025;20(2):196215. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.33873/2686-6706.2025.20-2.196-215

38. Larionov A. S. The role of the state in the creation and development of an ecosystem of venture capital investment, startups and technological innovations in the Israeli economy. Finansovyi zhurnal = Financial Journal. 2025;17(2):100-121. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.31107/2075-1990-2025-2-100-121

39. Naughton B. The rise of China’s industrial policy, 1978 to 2020. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc.; 2021. 131 р.

40. Abdikeev N. M., Stepnov I. M., Kovalchuk J. A. Rationing as a normative principle of ecosystem interaction’s financing. Finance: Theory and Practice. 2024;28(4):46-58. DOI: 10.26794/2587-5671-2024-28-4-46-58

41. Sutz J. Measuring innovation in developing countries: Some suggestions to achieve more accurate and useful indicators. International Journal of Technological Learning, Innovation and Development. 2012;5(1-2):40-57. DOI: 10.1504/IJTLID.2012.044876

42. Vasin S. M. Conditions and results of innovative development in Latin America and Russia: A comparative analysis. Mir novoi ekonomiki = The World of New Economy. 2025;19(1):6-16. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.26794/22206469-2025-19-1-6-16

43. Borrás S., Edquist C. Holistic innovation policy: Theoretical foundations, policy problems, and instrument choices. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press; 2019. 318 р. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198809807.001.0001

44. Lundvall B. А., ed. National systems of innovation: Toward a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Anthem Press; 2010. 404 р.

45. Zúñiga-Vicente J.Á., et al. Assessing the effect of public subsidies on firm R&D investment: A survey. Journal of Economic Surveys. 2014;28(1):36-67. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6419.2012.00738.x

46. Loseva O. V., Fedotova M. A., Abdikeev N. M. A conceptual model for evaluating digital intellectual assets. Finance: Theory and Practice. 2023;27(4):118-130. DOI: 10.26794/2587-5671-2023-27-4-118-130