Strategic priorities of regional development and technological sovereignty: points of convergence

Introduction. In contemporary conditions, researchers are increasingly focusing on, on the one hand, the global technological agenda and methods for defining corresponding national priorities, and on the other hand, approaches and mechanisms for forming strategic regional development priorities. However, research on these two fronts is predominantly conducted in isolation, which limits the practical implementation of the resulting solutions. Furthermore, recent global shocks have demonstrated the high vulnerability of overly centralized production systems; achieving technological sovereignty requires a balanced and sustainable aggregate of regional economic systems.

The purpose of this study is to examine the points of convergence between global technological trends, the correct consideration of which is required for achieving technological sovereignty, and regional strategic development priorities within the Russian economy.

Materials and methods. The research was conducted using methods of scientometric analysis and content analysis. The Lens.org platform served as the primary source for forming the corpus of articles. Scientometric analysis was performed using VOSviewer software (version 1.6.20). Content analysis of the most relevant articles was carried out to identify the intersection points of the considered thematic blocks, taking into account the concepts that formed the core clusters in the constructed network maps.

Results. Based on the construction of term network maps that account for the time factor, the study reveals disconnects in research on strategic regional economic development priorities and technological sovereignty. Research on technological trends shows a shift in focus from technological development to technological progress. Regarding regional development, a wide diversity of concepts was identified (innovation, strategic planning, cooperation, integration, employment, center-periphery relations, the search for competitive advantages and ways to respond to challenges by balancing strategies at different levels and the interests of various actors), alongside the absence of a clear trend in the evolution of publication content.

Conclusions. The study identifies areas of intersection between the considered thematic blocks: the infrastructure-technology domain, the human capital development domain, the creation of an innovation ecosystem, and industrial cooperation. Based on the analysis results, it is concluded that forming a new framework for economic policy is advisable-one that integrates regional, scientific-technical, and innovation policy not only through the inclusion of the same issues but also via new regulatory instruments.

1. Caravella S., Crespi F., Cucignatto G., Guarascio D. Technological sovereignty and strategic dependencies: The case of the photovoltaic supply chain. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2024;(434). 140222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.140222.

2. Crespi F., Caravella S., Menghini M., Salvatori C. European technological sovereignty: An Emerging Framework for Policy Strategy. Intereconomics. 2021;(56):348–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10272-021-1013-6

3. Edler J., Blind K., Kroll H., Schubert T. Technology sovereignty as an emerging frame for innovation policy. Defining rationales, ends and means. Research Policy. 2023;52(6): 104765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104765

4. Gareev T.R. Technological sovereignty: from conceptual contradictions to practical implementation. Terra Economicus. 2023. 21(4). 38–54. https://doi.org/10.18522/2073-6606-2023-21-4-38-54 (In Russ.)

5. Edler J., Blind K., Frietsch R., Kimpeler S., Kroll H., Lerch C., Reiss T., Roth F., Schubert T., Schuler J., Walz R. Technology Sovereignty: From Demand to Concept. Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research Policy Brief. No. 02/2020. Available online: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/233462/1/policybrief-02-2020.pdf (accessed on 15 September 2025)

6. Blind K. Standardization and Standards: Safeguards of Technological Sovereignty? Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2025;(210):123873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123873

7. March C., Schieferdecker I. Technological sovereignty as ability, not autarky. Int. Stud. Rev. 2023;25 (2) https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad012

8. Martynova E., Shcherbovich A. Digital transformation in Russia: Turning from a service model to ensuring technological sovereignty. Computer Law & Security Review. 2024;(55):106075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2024.106075

9. Pandey P. Digital Sovereignty and AI: Developing India’s National AI Stack for Strategic Autonomy. Procedia Computer Science. 2025;(254):250–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2025.02.084

10. Katsikas S. K. Towards a cybersecurity-oriented research agenda for digital sovereignty. Procedia Computer Science. 2025;(254):279–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2025.02.087

11. Nikitaeva A. Yu. The institutional structure of the region in the context of innovative industrial development. Journal of Institutional Studies. 2017;9(1):134–149. https://doi.org/10.17835/2076-6297.2017.9.1.134-149. (In Russ.)

12. Volchik V. V., Maslyukova E. V., Barunova A. A., Demakhina O. V. Differentiation of Russia’s regions in the process of reindustrialization. Economy of regions. 2025;21(1):1-16. https://doi.org/10.17059/ekon.reg.2025-1-1. (In Russ.)

13. Kosolapova, N. A., Nikitaeva, A. Yu., Dolgova, O. I., Gridnev, D. S., Fedorova, A. A. Clustering of Russian Regions: Transformation Factors and Economic Behavior Patterns. In: Kuzmin, E., Hodgson, G.M., Bravi, L., Lavrikova, Y. (eds) Searching for Developmental Alternatives in Economic Theory. EASET 2024. Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics. Springer, Cham. 2025. 146–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-91159-0_10.

14. Bredikhin S. V., Svarchevskaya M. V. Trends in world scientific and technical policy in the second quarter of 2025. Moscow: ISIEZ HSE. 2025. Access mode: https://issek.hse.ru/news/1091824521.html(In Russ.)

15. Gholizadeh A., Wang Y., Saneinia S. The political economy of regional development initiatives: A multiple-case analysis of economic impact and strategic objectives. Journal of Environmental Management. 2025;(394):127356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.127356.

16. Schütz M., Kriesch L., Losacker S. Mapping local government priorities: a web-mining approach for regional research. Regional Science Policy & Practice. 2025;17(12):100240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rspp.2025.100240.

17. Pobedin A. A. Regions innovative transformation based on smart specialization: a methodology for analyzing socio-economic development strategies. Municipality: Economics and Management. 2025;(2):20–35. (In Russ.)