SFeDu
of.211, Gorgoko St., 88 
Rostov-on-Don
Russia
344002
+7 (863) 250-59-54
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
te@sfedu.ru

TERRA ECONOMICUS

  • Home
  • Issues
  • 2026
  • No 1
  • Tax incentives for technological sovereignty in the context of geo-economic fragmentation

Tax incentives for technological sovereignty in the context of geo-economic fragmentation


TERRA ECONOMICUS, Vol. 24, No 1

Citation: Vishnevsky V.P., Gurnak A.V. (2026). Tax incentives for technological sovereignty in the context of geo-economic fragmentation. Terra Economicus 24(1), 53–70 (in Russian). DOI: 10.18522/2073-6606-2026-24-1-53-70


The transition from globalization to geo-economic fragmentation seen as a politically driven process of dividing the global economy into competing blocks of countries and regions, emphasizes the issue of national technological sovereignty and creates opportunities and challenges. This article focuses on how tax policy instruments can be used to enhance the positive effects and mitigate the negative consequences of geo-economic fragmentation in the context of technology sovereignty. We explore the rationale for using tax instruments to address technology lifecycle challenges, foster growth poles and support the development of technology ecosystems. Then, we discuss policy directions for tax incentives to support technological development and strengthen Russia’s technological sovereignty. Three main directions for tax incentives include: (1) structural shifts in tax incentives for technology development, with an emphasis on the medium and later stages (growth, diffusion, and maturity) of the life cycle of critical technologies, as well as tax support for the timely and controlled market exit of obsolete and unsuccessful technologies; (2) the creation of a more favorable institutional environment for the functioning of technological development ecosystems through the recognition of innovators’ right to risk and the deterrence of rent-seeking behavior (including the institutionalization of excess profit taxation); (3) the design, calibration, and adjustment of new tax instruments to enhance supply chain security, ensure data sovereignty, protect confidentiality, and promote interstate technological alliances with friendly countries within the framework of regulatory sandboxes in special economic zones. This approach to state regulation of technological development implies tax policy oriented toward performance indicators and ensuring national technological sovereignty, neither toward immediate economic returns nor short-term budgetary efficiency targets.

Keywords: geo-economic fragmentation; technological sovereignty; technology development; technology ecosystem; tax policy; tax incentives
JEL codes: H20, H30


References:
  • Vishnevsky, V., Makovetsky, S., Vishnevskaya, E. (2025). Effects of geoeconomic fragmentation: BRICS vs G7. Journal of Applied Economic Research 24(1), 6–33 (in Russian)
  • Volchik, V., Maslyukova, E. (2022). Institutional change and Russian innovation system challenges. Terra Economicus 20(4), 23–44 (in Russian)
  • Gareev, T. (2023). Technological sovereignty: From conceptual contradiction to practical implementation. Terra Economicus 21(4), 38–54 (in Russian)
  • Dementiev, V. (2024). Technological sovereignty and economic interests. Journal of Institutional Studies 16(3), 6–18 (in Russian)
  • Zagashvili, V. (2024). World trade in the conditions of globalization crisis. World Economy and International Relations 68(11), 5–14 (in Russian)
  • Nelson, R., Winter, S. (2002). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Moscow: Delo Publ. (in Russian)
  • Rozmainsky, I. (2006). "Investor myopia" in post Keynesian theory and in the Russian Economy. Voprosy Ekonomiki (9), 71–82 (in Russian)
  • Smirnov, E. (2024). The evolution of international sanctions against Russia. Russian Foreign Economic Journal (4), 7–35 (in Russian)
  • Smorodinscaya, N. (2011). Organization of the special economic zones in the world and the Russian practice: Conceptual aspects. The Bulletin of the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences (3), 16–36 (in Russian)
  • Foster, R. (1987). Innovation: The Attacker's Advantage. Moscow: Progress Publ. (in Russian)
  • Aiyar, S., Chen, J., Ebeke, C. et al. (2023). Geoeconomic Fragmentation and the Future of Multilateralism. Staff Discussion Note № SDN/2023/001. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund. DOI: 10.5089/9798400229046.006
  • Alexander, R. (2013). Tax transparency. Business Horizons 56(5), 543–549. DOI: 10.1016/j.bushor.2013.06.003
  • Alinaghi, N., Reed, W. (2020). Taxes and economic growth in OECD countries: A meta-analysis. Public Finance Review 49(1), 3–40. DOI: 10.1177/1091142120961775
  • Arthur, B. (1989). Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. The Economic Journal 99(394), 116–131. DOI: 10.2307/2234208
  • Blanga-Gubbay, M., Rubinova, S. (2024). Is the global economy fragmenting? World Trade Organization Staff Working Paper № ERSD-2023–10. Geneva: WTO. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/280428/1/1873031211.pdf (accessed on November 10, 2025)
  • Bolhuis, M., Chen, J., Kett, B. (2023). The costs of geoeconomic fragmentation. Disruption in trade threatens losses to global living standards as severe as those from COVID-19. Finance & Development June, 35–37. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2023/06/the-costs-of-geoeconomic-fragmentation-bolhuis-chen-kett (accessed on November 10, 2025)
  • Boudeville, J.-R. (1966). Problems of Regional Economic Planning. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  • Buchanan, J., Musgrave, R. (1999). Public Finance and Public Choice: Two Contrasting Visions of the State. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Chaisse, J., Ji, X. (2020). The pervasive problem of special economic zones for international economic law: Tax, investment, and trade issues. World Trade Review 19(4), 567–588. DOI: 10.1017/S1474745620000129
  • Chen, S., Dauchy, E. (2018). International technology sourcing and knowledge spillovers: Evidence from OECD countries. IMF Working Paper № 2018(051), A001. DOI: 10.5089/9781484345429.001.A001
  • Ettmeier, S., Kriwoluzky, A. (2024). Active or passive? Revisiting the role of fiscal policy during high inflation. European Economic Review 170, 104874. DOI: 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2024.104874
  • Frick, S., Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2025). Lessons-learnt from growth pole strategies in the developing world. Progress in Planning 195, 100958. DOI: 10.1016/j.progress.2025.100958
  • Goldberg, P., Reed, T. (2023). Is the Global Economy Deglobalizing? And if so, why? And what is next? NBER Working Paper № 31115. DOI: 10.3386/w31115
  • Hauser, H., Nakib, H. (2022). The global race to achieve technology sovereignty. FST Journal 23(2), 14–17. DOI: 10.53289/NDNE8574
  • Juhász, R., Lane, N., Rodrik, D. (2023). The new economics of industrial policy. NBER Working Paper № 31538. DOI: 10.3386/w31538
  • Kaldor, N. (1966). Causes of the Slow Rate of Economic Growth of the United Kingdom: An Inaugural Lecture. L.: Cambridge University Press.
  • Krugman, P. (1991). Increasing returns and economic geography. Journal of Political Economy 99(3), 483–499. DOI: 10.1086/261763
  • Lim, J., Kwon, D., Ha, S. (2025). Revisiting the growth poles: Regional disparity and population redistribution policy. The Annals of Regional Science, Springer; Western Regional Science Association 74(1), 1–27. DOI: 10.1007/s00168-025-01357-7
  • Mankiw, N., Weinzierl, M., Yagan, D. (2009). Optimal taxation in theory and practice. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 23(4), 147–174.
  • Martin, R., Sunley, P. (2015). On the notion of regional economic resilience: conceptualization and explanation. Journal of Economic Geography 15(1), 1–42. DOI: 10.1093/jeg/lbu015
  • Mazzucato, M. (2013). The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths. Anthem Press.
  • Moore, J. (1993). Predators and prey: A new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review 71(3), 75–86.
  • Perroux, F. (1955). Note sur la notion de "pole de croissance". Economie appliquée 8(1–2), 307–320. https://www.persee.fr/doc/ecoap_0013-0494_1955_num_8_1_2522 (accessed on November 20, 2025)
  • Sinenko, O. (2016). Methods of assessing of tax incentives effectiveness in special economic zones: An analytical overview. Journal of Tax Reform 2(3), 168–178. DOI: 10.15826/jtr.2016.2.3.022
  • Stiglitz, J., Weiss, A. (1981). Credit rationing in markets with imperfect information. American Economic Review 71(3), 393–410.
  • Tansley, A. (1935). The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. Ecology 16, 284–307. DOI: 10.2307/1930070
  • Vlados, C., Chatzinikolaou, D. (2020). From growth poles and clusters to business ecosystems dynamics: The ILDI counterproposal. International Journal of World Policy and Development Studies 6(7), 115–126. DOI: 10.32861/ijwpds.67.115.126
  • Wu, B., Xu, X., Feng, Z. (2018). Investment promotion, fiscal competition and economic growth sustainability. Sustainability 10(1), 45. DOI: 10.3390/su10010045

Publisher: Southern Federal University
ISSN: 2073-6606