Transformation of the modern economy production structure: Servitization or new industrial development?

Aim. The work aimed to study the manifestations and fundamental causes of structural transformations of the modern economy from the standpoint of the relationship between service and industrial-production activities.
Objectives. The work seeks to identify the relationship between the results of economic development and the economic-theoretical views prevailing in society, to analyze the phenomenon of servitization of the economy and its statistical presentation; to specify the reasons for changes in the production structure of the modern economy, interpreted traditionally (within the theory of post-industrial development) as its servitization, to formulate proposals for adjusting economic policy aimed at creating a model of new industrial development in the context of sanctions.
Methods. The study is based on scientific concepts of classical and modern economic theory, as well as on the analysis of factual data characterizing structural changes in modern economic systems of Russia and other countries of the world.
Results. The authors have identified the fundamental reasons for the change in the modern economy production structure, which is presented in official statistical observations and is called servitization. There are two of these reasons, namely the development of the structure of needs, stimulating the production of services, which is associated with consumer demand, while the increase in the production of services is associated with a more complete satisfaction of the growing needs of people; another reason is the improvement of the organization of production based on the enhanced division of labor, which, as its technological level increases and new coordination tools (in particular, based on digitalization) and network forms of interaction between companies are introduced, becomes distributed, while intercompany transactions, essentially being the production in nature, are taken into account in statistics as service interaction.
Conclusions. The discrepancy between the form (service) and essence (production-industrial) of interaction between companies revealed in the study course is mistakenly taken in the theory of post-industrial development as a sign of the loss of industry’s significance in the modern economic model. The consequence of such not entirely correct interpretations of the facts observed is the wrong choice of economic policy instruments. This leads to problems in economic development, which, in particular, clearly manifested themselves under sanctions. According to the authors, the provisions discussed in the article can become the basis for revising in practice the approaches to the implementation of economic policy in the Russian Federation.

1. Grinin L.E., Korotayev A.V. Social macroevolution and historical process (introduction). Filosofiya i obshchestvo = Philosophy and Society. 2007;(3):5-48. (In Russ.).

2. Kleiner G. Systemic structure of economy and economic policy. Problemy teorii i praktiki upravleniya = Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Management. 2006;(5):8-21. (In Russ.).

3. Plotnikov A.V., Kharlamov A.V. Directions to neutralize the negative impact of non-economic shocks on the real sector of the Russian economy. Izvestiya Sankt-Peterburgskogo gosudarstvennogo ekonomicheskogo universiteta. 2023;(1):50-58. (In Russ.).

4. Plotnikov A.V., Plotnikov V.A. Achievement of technological sovereignty in the context of ensuring Russia’s economic security in the conditions of sanctions. Ekonomika i upravlenie = Economics and Management. 2024;30(8):987-998. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.35854/1998-1627-2024-8-987-998

5. Korzikhina E.M., Baranov D.N. Mechanisms for circumventing unilateral economic restrictions for the oil and gas industry in the Russian Federation. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta im. S.Yu. Vitte. Seriya 1: Ekonomika i upravlenie = Moscow Witte University Bulletin. Series 1: Economics and Management. 2023;(3):18-27. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.21777/2587-554X-2023-3-18-27

6. Karataev S.V., Bazhenov I.N., Prokopenkova I.O., Troshin N.N. The fragmenting world: Where is the global economy heading? Problemy natsional’noi strategii = National Strategy Issues. 2024;(3):12-65. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.52311/2079-3359_2024_3_12

7. Plotnikov V.A. Structural transformations of the Russian economy under the influence of shocks and national economic security. Vektor nauki Tol’yattinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Ekonomika i upravlenie = Science Vector of Togliatti State University. Series: Economics and Management. 2023;(1):15-25. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.18323/2221-5689-2023-1-15-25

8. Bodrunov S.D. Noonomics. Moscow: Kul’turnaya Revolyutsiya; 2018. 432 p. (In Russ.).

9. Petrov A.N., Karpova G.A., Khoreva L.V. Conceptualization of approaches to designing integrated theory of ser- vices. Izvestiya Sankt-Peterburgskogo gosudarstvennogo ekono­ micheskogo universiteta. 2012;(1):40-50. (In Russ.).

10. Bobylev V.S., Romanov A.A. Formation of simulation behavior as a new way of sales promotion. Prikladnye ekonomicheskie issledovaniya = Applied Economic Research. 2024;(S1):91-95. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.47576/2949-1908.2024.47.67.013

11. Maslow A.H. Motivation and personality. London: Longman Publishing; 1987. 336 p. (Russ. ed.: Maslow A. Motivatsiya i lichnost’. St. Petersburg: Piter; 2019. 400 p.).

12. Amin S. Russia and the long transition from capitalism to socialism. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press; 2016. 135 p. (Russ. ed.: Amin S. Rossiya: Dolgii put’ ot kapitalizma k sotsializmu. St. Petersburg: Witte Institute for New Industrial Development; Moscow: Kul’turnaya revolyutsiya; 2017. 148 p.).

13. Volkova A.A. The sphere of services: A theoretical analysis. Izvestiya Sankt-Peterburgskogo gosudarstvennogo ekonomicheskogo universiteta. 2014;(4):11-16. (In Russ.).

14. Kotliarov I.D. Platform transformation and servitization: The relationship of trends of economic development. Ekonomika i upravlenie: teoriya i praktika = Economy and Management: Theory and Practice. 2024;10(4):40-47. (In Russ.).

15. Rudenko M.N., Gribanov Yu.I. Trends of digitalization and servicization of economy. Teoriya i praktika servisa: ekonomika, sotsial’naya sfera, tekhnologii. 2019;(2):5-8. (In Russ.).

16. Renzin O.M., Suslov D.V. Economic dynamics in Japan: Detailing of the Abenomics policy institutional outlines. Yaponskie issledovaniya = Japanese Studies in Russia. 2020;(1):85-105. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.24411/2500-2872-2020-10005

17. Shchedrovitsky P.G., Kuznetsov Yu.V. Adam Smith’s ideas on the division of labor. Voprosy filosofii. 2016;(5):27- 38. (In Russ.).

18. Kurbanov A.Kh. Outsourcing: Theory, methodology, specifics of application in a military organization. St. Petersburg: Copy-R Group; 2011. 277 p. (In Russ.).

19. Kurbanov A.Kh., Plotnikov V.A. Outsourcing: History, methodology, practice. Moscow: Infra-M; 2012. 112 p. (In Russ.).

20. Vertakova Yu.V., Dmitriev D.V., Plotnikov V.A. An approach to solving import substitution problems based on the use of interorganizational interaction opportunities. Ekonomika i upravlenie = Economics and Management. 2025;31(5):556-565. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.35854/1998-1627-2025-5-556-565

21. Dmitriev D.V. Management of network organizations: Analysis of economic characteristics. Ekonomika i upravlenie = Economics and Management. 2025;31(2):205-211. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.35854/1998-1627-2025-2-205-211

22. Kotlyarov I.D. Methods of identification of hybrid structure. Vestnik NGUEU = Vestnik NSUEM. 2015;(4):347-356. (In Russ.).

23. Lin M. The issue of technological sovereignty in the 21st century: The concept, peculiarity and experience of China. Pravo i politika = Law and Politics. 2024;(9):20-39. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.7256/2454-0706.2024.9.71241