The leading executive of Sberbank, German Gref, spoke in depth about the obstacles facing the Russian economy during a recent interview with Stimulator, a publication known for its business insights. His remarks centered on what hinders the country’s capacity to grow through innovation and how those barriers shape the broader economic landscape in Russia.
In the dialogue, a Stimulator journalist asked Gref to pinpoint the most significant problems in advancing innovation within the Russian Federation. Gref framed the issue around a simple but powerful premise: innovation flourishes where there is clear demand. He argued that Russia has not historically cultivated enough demand for new ideas and breakthrough technologies to sustain rapid innovation over time.
Gref elaborated that the core problem is a deficit of demand for innovation, a factor he sees as closely tied to competition. He explained that when competition is intense, firms must innovate to win and to maintain a competitive edge. Conversely, when competition is weaker, the pressure to innovate weakens, and the country risks falling behind global peers. In his view, the current level of competition in many Russian sectors does not meet the standards seen in the global market, leading to slower progress in novel offerings and processes. He stressed that demand for innovation is rising, yet the pace is not as fast as he would expect or want to see manifesting across the economy.
According to Gref, this uneven dynamic has been a persistent feature of the economy. He noted that the issue has existed for a long time and continues to affect development, suggesting that any sustained improvement must address this fundamental mismatch between innovation supply and market demand.
Beyond demand, Gref highlighted two other critical areas that demand attention. The second issue concerns infrastructure: the need to build and upgrade the physical and institutional bases that allow new technologies to be tested, scaled, and adopted. Without reliable and modern infrastructure, even promising innovations struggle to reach the market or achieve broad uptake. The third factor he mentioned is a practical proposal, reflecting the idea that tangible steps must accompany broad recognition of the problem. He argued that each stage of the innovation lifecycle faces challenges, but the demand side remains the essential lever that can unlock progress. The key, as he put it, is to create conditions where the market actively seeks and embraces innovative solutions.
In the context of Russia’s economy, the discussion underscored a broader concern that resonates with many observers: the reliance on traditional commodities and the need to diversify through technology and new business models. The argument is not about dismissing hydrocarbons or other established sectors but about recognizing that sustainable growth will increasingly depend on the ability to translate ideas into practical products and services that command demand in competitive markets. This perspective aligns with the view of other prominent figures who have commented on Russia’s economic structure and the path toward a more innovation-oriented future.
The dialogue with Stimulator thus presents a layered picture. It emphasizes the importance of demand-driven innovation, the role of competition in stimulating progress, and the essential infrastructure and policy foundations that enable new technologies to flourish. It also invites ongoing discussion about how to align incentives, investment, and talent with the needs of a modern economy that can compete on the global stage. The emphasis on demand as the pivotal factor suggests that policy makers, business leaders, and researchers should collaborate to create markets for new ideas, encourage experimentation, and reduce friction for novel developments to reach consumers and end users. This approach would help Russia build a more dynamic, innovative economy that can better withstand global shifts in energy and technology markets, while recognizing the enduring influence of hydrocarbons on the industrial landscape. The dialogue remains a useful touchstone for policymakers and observers seeking to understand the complex interplay between demand, competition, and infrastructure in modern economic growth, underscoring that true progress requires a steady, coordinated push across multiple fronts.