Entrepreneurial universities in less innovative regions: problems and solutions
Innovative and research activities within universities are increasingly linked with regional socio-economic conditions and innovative capacities of local business. In less innovative Russian regions, though, prospects for mid-range universities might be limited due to poor research quality and the lack of mutual trust between Academia and industry. In this paper university-level data are analysed in relation to regional innovative development. Despite gross heterogeneity within the sample, the findings suggest that research and commercialization propensities are likely to be shaped by the type of university, its proactive approach and internal structure rather than regional settings. Mid-range universities might consider less formal ways to contribute to regional innovation systems, which is more in line with ‘engaged’ rather than ‘entrepreneurial’ university approach.
The role of universities has undergone dramatic changes. Universities no longer only host knowledge, but are now required to develop it further and to contribute to economic growth and support for e.g. companies to strengthen their competitiveness. This is of particular importance for the Russian Federation, where the last 20 years saw the dismantlement of the innovation system of the Soviet Union and ever since has been struggling to close the gap to the innovation-driven economies of Western Europe. When the Russian Federation shifted towards a market economy in the 1990s, economists, sociologists, political scientists and/or management staff educated in modern principles of management were in short supply. To alleviate the situation, the State University - the Higher School of Economics - was founded November 27, 1992 by the Russian Federation Government Decree No 736 to educate future leading professionals in the field of economics and social sciences. Currently HSE is the largest research-led institutions in the field of social and economic sciences in Eastern Europe. Spread over Four Russian cities - Moscow, St. Petersburg, Nizhny Novgorod and Perm. Of particular interest is the Innovation Infrastructure Development Program which puts great emphasize on commercialization of research results and entrepreneurial thinking.
In recent year’s science and technology policy in Russian Federation experienced a burst of initiatives aimed on fostering innovation-based economic development. One of policy instrument deployed by the government is promotion of regional innovation clusters including innovation clusters in biotechnology. Development of the biotechnology sector in Russian Federation is grounded in significant science and technology legacy of Soviet era. The purpose of the study is to evaluate level of development of support infrastructure in regional biotechnology clusters in Russian Federation. This is an exploratory study is based on a case-study design involved semi-structured survey of 54 participants of a Russian biotechnology cluster. The paper revealed an immature nature of the support infrastructure which inhibits innovation in biotechnology companies. Based on the findings paper offers a conceptual framework of organising regional biotechnology cluster under conditions of severe market failure in support infrastructure. Although paper focuses on regional clusters in Russia, the implications of the study have significance to scholars in better understanding the nature of biotechnology development in Russia. The developed framework could be utilised by policymakers in regions with underdeveloped market conditions.
The book explores different approaches towards the ‘entrepreneurial university’ paradigm, explores channels and mechanism used by universities to implement the paradigm and contributes to the public discussion on the impact of commercialization on university research and knowledge. It argues that different types of university-industry interaction may have repercussions even on funding of basic research if an appropriate balance is ensured between the two. University activities – both research and education in all forms – should provide economic and social relevance directed towards open science and open innovation. This book adds value to current knowledge by presenting both a conceptual framework and case studies which describe different contexts.
The concept of entrepreneurial university and role of culture in its formation is analyzed. The understanding of academic entrepreneurial culture, as culture integrating the academic and entrepreneurial values is offered. The article reveals that methods for diagnosis organizational culture in enterprises are not suitable for an assessment of university culture. The suggestions are made for development an adequate technique for the diagnosis organizational culture of entrepreneurial university.
This article analyses the concept of entrepreneurial university and the role of culture in its formation. Theproblem of appropriate diagnostic method is being risen. The article discusses the findings of organizational culture assessmentby means ofdiagnostic methodof R.Goffee and G. Jones in the two universitiesof Nizhny Novgorod. The way ofdevelopment of congruent method of the university organizational culture diagnosis is being offered.
The modern university, and with it the academic profession itself, are facing new challenges: first, the increasing complexity of labor markets and globalization are undermining the structure of the academic profession, and secondly, the rise in cost of university research calls into question the autonomy of the university. The internationalization of the academic labor market encourages rethinking the structure of academic professions that have historically been focused on national (regional) contexts. The university is too expensive for the state and/or for students. One way to keep the autonomy of the university is to offer society, the state and businesses a wide range of services. Demin seeks to answer the following questions: can bureaucratic (self-)management effectively regulate the growing body of the university? Is it necessary to relinquish part of the university’s autonomy to a hired manager? Can “soft managerialism,” using economic instruments to reveal the possibilities of the university to society, become a new defense of university autonomy?
The paper examines the structure, governance, and balance sheets of state-controlled banks in Russia, which accounted for over 55 percent of the total assets in the country's banking system in early 2012. The author offers a credible estimate of the size of the country's state banking sector by including banks that are indirectly owned by public organizations. Contrary to some predictions based on the theoretical literature on economic transition, he explains the relatively high profitability and efficiency of Russian state-controlled banks by pointing to their competitive position in such functions as acquisition and disposal of assets on behalf of the government. Also suggested in the paper is a different way of looking at market concentration in Russia (by consolidating the market shares of core state-controlled banks), which produces a picture of a more concentrated market than officially reported. Lastly, one of the author's interesting conclusions is that China provides a better benchmark than the formerly centrally planned economies of Central and Eastern Europe by which to assess the viability of state ownership of banks in Russia and to evaluate the country's banking sector.
The paper examines the principles for the supervision of financial conglomerates proposed by BCBS in the consultative document published in December 2011. Moreover, the article proposes a number of suggestions worked out by the authors within the HSE research team.