Diagnostics of Fiscal Instruments for Stimulating the Development of the Cyber- Social System in Knowledge-Intensive Industries

The subject of the study is tax and budgetary instruments aimed at stimulating the development of human capital in knowledge-intensive sectors of the economy. The purpose of the study is to diagnose fiscal instruments for human capital stimulation in order to identify the institutional constraints of state financial support that hinder the development of employee competencies in knowledge-intensive industries. The study employs the following methods: analysis of academic publications and regulatory legal documents related to state support for the efficient utilization of employee competencies in knowledge-intensive sectors of the economy; and empirical analysis of the impact of tax and budgetary preferences on human capital development in the context of achieving technological sovereignty and technological leadership. The paper provides a literature review covering the following aspects of the research problem: the efficient utilization of employee competencies in knowledge-intensive industries; the influence of tax and budgetary incentives on human capital development aimed at achieving technological sovereignty and leadership; and the separation of the effects of state financial support for the objective assessment of its role in stimulating intellectual capital. The study identifies limitations associated with the ecosystem-based nature of tax and budgetary instruments designed to promote human capital development in knowledge-intensive industries for the achievement of technological sovereignty and leadership. The findings of the study may be useful for employees of financial authorities, lecturers in economics-related disciplines, and students specializing in management, law, and economics.

1. Chandler A.D. Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the industrial enterprise. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 1962. 463 p.

2. Grant R.M. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal. 1996;17(S2):109-122. DOI: 10.1002/smj.4250171110.

3. Teece D.J. Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal. 2007;28(13):1319-1350. DOI: 10.1002/smj.640.

4. Mintzberg H., Waters J. A. Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic Management Journal.1985;6(3):257-272. DOI: 10.1002/smj.4250060306.

5. Romancheva N.I., Yurkevich E.V. Assessing the significance of the relationships between the characteristics of a cybersocial system. Trudy Mezhdunarodnogo simpoziuma “Nadezhnost’ i kachestvo” = International Symposium “Reliability & Quality”. 2016;1:232-235. (In Russ.).

6. Yurkevich E.V. Introduction to the theory of information systems. Moscow: Tekhnologii; 2007. 270 p. (In Russ.).

7. Mintzberg H. The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1979. 512 p.

8. Yurkevich E.V., Kalugina A. D., Kryukova L. N. Cybersocial systems as a tool for optimizing strategic management at an industrial enterprise. In: Proc. 11th Int. conf. “Managing large-scale systems development” (MLSD’2018). (Moscow, October 1–3, 2018). Moscow: V.A. Trapeznikov Institute of Control Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences; 2018;1:236-238. (In Russ.).

9. Abdikeev N.M., Abrosimova O.M., Fufaev M.D. Assessing the impact of intelligent industrial production factors on achieving technological sovereignty. Biznes. Obrazovanie. Pravo = Business. Education. Law. 2025;(3):13-18. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.25683/VOLBI.2025.72.1374.

10. Pfeffer J. The human equation: Building profits by putting people first. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press; 1998. 345 p.

11. Volberda H.W., van den Bosch F.A.J., Heij C.V. Management innovation: Management as fertile ground for innovation. European Management Review. 2013;10(1):1-15. DOI: 10.1111/emre.12007.

12. Chigoryaev K.N., Skopintseva N.A., Ulyashchenko V.V. Evaluation of cost of the human capital on the basis of incurred expenses. Izvestiya Tomskogo politekhnicheskogo universiteta = Bulletin of the Tomsk Polytechnic University. 2008;313(6):54-56. (In Russ.).

13. Narbut V.V., Abdikeev N.M. Intellectualization of industrial production as a factor in achieving technological sovereignty: Essence and principles. Mir novoi ekonomiki = The World of New Economy. 2025;19(3):6-16. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.26794/2220-6469-2025-19-3-6-16.

14. Child J. Organization: A guide to problems and practice. London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd; 1997. 309 p.

15. Teece D.J. Business models and dynamic capabilities. Long Range Planning. 2018;51(1):40-49. DOI: 10.1016/j.lrp.2017.06.007.

16. Blomquist N.S. Should educational expenses be deductible? A comparison of tax bases in a model where education is a choice variable. Journal of Public Economics. 1982;18(1):65-83. DOI: 10.1016/0047-2727(82)90011-1.

17. Bednar S., Gicheva D. Tax benefits for graduate education: Incentives for whom? Economics of Education Review. 2013;36:181-197. 10.1016/j.econedurev.2013.07.001.

18. Hoxby C., Bulman G. The effects of the tax deduction for postsecondary tuition: Implications for structuring tax-based aid. NBER Working Paper. 2015;(21554). DOI: 10.3386/w21554.

19. Kireenko A.P., Krasikova T.Y. Personal income tax deductions and demand for education: Case of Russia. Journal of Tax Reform. 2023;9(2):145-160. DOI: 10.15826/jtr.2023.9.2.134.

20. Tikhonova A.V., Malkova Yu.V. Development of the STEM-education system in Russia and its tax incentives. EKO: vserossiiskii ekonomicheskii zhurnal = ECO Journal. 2023;53(3):27-46. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.30680/ECO0131-7652-2023-3-27-46.

21. Tikhonova A.V. The problem of separating the effects of state financial support and its solutions. Ekonomika. Nalogi. Pravo = Economics, Taxes & Law. 2023;16(5):104-113. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.26794/1999-849X-2023-16-5-104-113.

22. Vasil’chenko A.D. Tax incentives in the system of financial support for human capital development. Cand. econ. sci. diss. Moscow: Financial University; 2026. 222 p. (In Russ.).

23. Akerlof G.A. The market for “lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics.1970;84(3):488-500. DOI: 10.2307/1879431.

24. Gromov V.V. Features and problems of tax incentives for small software companies in Russia. Finansovyi zhurnal = Financial Journal. 2022;14(1):8-25. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.31107/2075-1990-2022-1-8-25.

25. Sosnovskii S., Voinov V., Galiyakhmetov R. Tax support measures have been adopted: Conditions for the development of the IT industry, domestic software and radio-electronic products, etc. EZh-Bukhgalter. 2022;(28):7-9. URL: https://www.eg-online.ru/article/457768/ (In Russ.).

26. Turbina O. Federal Investment Tax Deduction (FITD) for corporate income tax: Application parameters have been determined (types of activity, procedure, size). EZh-Bukhgalter. 2024;(36):6. URL: https://www.eg-online.ru/article/491062/ (In Russ.).