Technological Innovations and Future Shifts in International Politics
How are large technological changes and important shifts in international politics interconnected? It is shown in the article that primary technological innovations, which take place in each Kondratieff cycle, change the balance of power between the leading states and cause shifts in international politics. In the beginning of the twenty-first century, the genesis and initial development of the cluster of new technologies takes place in periods of crisis and depression. Therefore, the authors forecast that the period 2013–2020 will be marked by the advancement of important technological innovations and massive geopolitical shifts in many regions of the world.
This proceeding includes the papers of the following topics:
Bioinformatics, e-Health and Wellbeing Internet of Things and enabling technologies Smart Spaces, Linked Data and Semantic Web Big Data and Data Mining, Data Storage and Management Knowledge and Data Managements Systems Location Based Services: Navigation, Logistics, e-Tourism Context Awareness and Proactive Services Sensor Design, Ad-hoc and Sensor Networking Natural Language Processing, Speech Technologies Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and Automation Systems Open Source Mobile OS: Architectures and Applications Software Design, Innovative Applications Smart Systems and Embedded Networks Security and Privacy: Applications and Coding Theory Next Generation Networks, Emerging Wireless Technologies, 5G Computer Vision, Image and Video Processing Crowdsourcing and Collective Intelligence IoT based methods for Smart Water Distribution and Management in Agriculture Innovative Drone Enhanced Applications Semantic Audio and the Internet of Things Intelligence, Social Media and Web
The reports were present at the 24th Conference of Open Innovations Association FRUCT held on April 8-12, 2019 in Moscow, Russia.
Purpose: The aim of the research is to test hypothesis that ensuring economic growth innovation is important for regions with higher level of development and it is less significant in explaining growth in other regions. Public and private R&D expenditure is very highly concentrated in a small number of leading regions: those closer to the productive frontier. Regions outside these high-technology cores tend to depend on less R&D-intensive forms of innovation and on technology transfer. Design/methodology/approach: We have identified the following factors that are relevant for the regional growth: human capital, infrastructure, labour market, innovation, agglomeration and connectivity, productivity. As the innovation factor, we use number of patents, internal expenditures on R&D, expenditures on technological innovations, the number of staff engaged in R&D, the volume of innovative goods, works and services, innovative activity of organizations. Innovation can have a positive impact on long-term growth. The data has been collected in 83 Russian regions for 2005-2015. We use a power-mode regression model with constant elasticity. Findings: Not all innovative factors have a positive effect on the regional economic growth. The inclusion of such factors as employment rate; internal expenditures on R & D; the number of staff engaged in R & D; the innovative goods, works and services; innovative activity of organizations; density of GDP is surplus. The analysis showed that they are not statistically significant. Partly we can explain it as the more successful regions develop due to conjuncture factors, and science and technology are not the reason for economic growth. Our hypothesis has not been confirmed. Research/practical implications: In the case when the influence of the conjuncture factors on regional economic growth is great, it is difficult to assess the significance of innovation. The division of regions into groups according to the level of per capita GRP allows us to identify significant factors of innovation for growth. From the point of view of practical application, we see that the regions below average level of per capita GDP need the development of innovation. Such institutional factors as governance, leadership, capacity should consider an active role of innovation and work force. Originality/value: On the example of the Russian regions we have shown that ensuring economic growth innovation is important for regions with below average level of development and it is less significant in explaining of growth in other regions.
The aim of this paper is that of contributing to existing literature on the relationship between environmental innovation and productivity. Generally, environmental innovation (clean) has a lower return than non-environmental one (dirty) in the short run, because of higher compliance costs for regulations. However, the positive effects of policy-induced clean innovations on productivity will be observed in the medium-long run. Since we lack empirical studies on this topic in developing countries, we try to fill this gap for Russia country. Firstly, we investigate whether there is a complementary link or a crowding-out effect between dirty innovation and clean one. Secondly, we identify the extent to which this effect can be sensitive to type of environmental activity. In particular, the paper provides both a theoretical model and an empirical analysis, based upon an unbalanced dataset composed of 85 Russian regions for the period 2010–2015. In order to measure the clean innovation, we take into account both the share of organizations engaged in environmental innovations and share of organizations engaged in reducing CO2 ‘footprint’ (total CO2 production), or engaged in reducing soil, water, noise, or air pollution, or engaged in recycling of waste, water and materials. The empirical results of a panel data model show that the impact of environmental innovations on Russian regions' productivity is positive. This finding could be important in terms of policy implications.
There are grounds to conclude that in 2011–2012 the World System experienced to some extent a phase transition to a qualitatively new state of global protest activity. This phase transition is shown to bear some resemblance to the one which the World System experienced in the early 1960s. The ﬁrst (after 1919) phase transition of this sort occurred in the early 1960s and was related to the growth of global informational connectivity after World War II, as well as the improvement of the means of protest self-organization due to the spread of television, portable radio receivers, portable electric loud-speakers and other technologies of the Fourth Kondratieff Cycle. The phase transition of the early 2010s was prepared by a newwave of growth of global informational connectivity, as well as the improvement of the means of protest self-organization due to the spread of various technologies of the Fifth Kondratieff cycle (the Internet, satellite television, Twitter and other social networks, mobile telephony etc.). Similarly to what was observed during the Fourth Kondratieff Wave, during the Fifth Cycle while the spread of these technologies was going on for many years before 2011, their internal colossal potential for generating and spreading protest activity was realized in one leap, as a phase transition.