The paper suggests a model for verifying ways to identify scientific-technological priorities in Russia and suggests instruments for their implementation and correction. Our model for the identification of priorities is based on Russia’s socio-economic development goals, and takes into account the impact of different scientific and technological development scenarios on the implementation of models of socio-economic arrangement. Based on this logic, a group of technological priorities invariant to the wider spectrum of national economic and social goals is suggested.World economic, social, and scientific-technological trends and their Russian projections are taken as exogenous factors for choosing technological priorities. The suggested approach is based on the assumption that a new system of priorities should ensure support for implementing strategic development goals and tasks in the medium- and long term, and aims to help define these goals and tasks more accurately.As a result, the paper identifies two groups of priorities. The first group outlines the already institutionalized directions of technological development while the second group outlines directions for institutionalization in the near future. The suggested logic is illustrated through analysis of five world trends and their applications in Russia, and we highlight which technologies will be driven by these global trends.
Public research plays an extremely important role in social and economic development, and has implications for industry, services, education, training, the creation and diffusion of knowledge, management etc. In turn, R&D and innovation activities in the business sector are becoming increasingly open. Being influenced by increasingly tightened global competition, companies are entering into partnerships with other companies, universities or public research institutions (PRIs) to leverage competences from different places and organizations to foster innovation. The search for partners and the management of many co-operations itself are new challenges especially in terms of administering intellectual property rights. Universities and PRIs must respond to the changing requirements imposed by companies while maintaining their unique positions as research and science related institutions. The overall framework conditions for these actors are changing, which in turn requires new government policies especially given the slowdown in key performance indicators of the commercialization activities of PRIs.
The paper highlights recent trends and approaches related to knowledge and technology transfer from public research and education to industry. It considers legislative initiatives to target industry engagement and research personnel, new technology transfer office models, collaborative intellectual property (IP) tools, and initiatives to facilitate access to public research results. The authors stress that the quality of research has a strong influence on knowledge and technology transfer. In turn, contrary to the widespread belief that knowledge and technology transfer activities might negatively impact scientists’ academic work several studies found evidence that the engagement of scientists in technology transfer and commercialization activities does not have negative impacts on the quality and quantity of academic research. In fact, scientists who are actively engaged in technology and knowledge transfer, i.e. through patenting, also enjoy a high scientific reputation and in most cases do excellent scientific work.
Spending on innovation increased annually in the 2000s in Russia’s regions, but innovation productivity varies greatly between regions. In the current climate of sanctions between Russia and Western countries and limitations on international technology transfer, there is a growing need to analyse the factors influencing regional innovation. Previous empirical studies using a knowledge production function approach have found that the main factor of the growth of regional innovation is increasing spending on research and development (R&D). Our econometric analyses show that the quality of human capital, a product of the number of economically active urban citizens with a higher education (the so-called creative class) has the greatest influence on the number of potentially commercializable patents. Other significant factors were buying equipment, which indicates a high rate of wear and tear of Russian machinery, and spending on basic research. The ‘centre-periphery’ structure of Russia’s innovation system favours the migration of highly qualified researchers to leading regions, which weakens the potential of the ‘donor regions’. However, at the same time, we see significantly fewer limitations on knowledge spillovers in the form of patents and — in this case — proximity to the ‘centres’ is a positive factor.
The continuous growth of investment in R&D in Russia and the world increases the demand for optimal allocation of public funds to support the most productive scientific performers. These are, however, hard to conceptualize and measure. First, we need to consider the nature of research activity itself and, second, we need to evaluate a number of factors that influence such activities at the national, institutional and individual levels. One of the issues is motivation of academic personnel, who are considered to be the main producers of new knowledge. Therefore, it is necessary to analyse the employment characteristics of researchers, and develop adequate mechanisms to facilitate their scientific productivity.
This paper aims to examine determinants of publication activity among doctorate holders employed in an academic sector in Russia. Data for the analysis was derived from a survey on the labour market for highly qualified R&D personnel conducted in 2010 by the HSE, within the framework of the OECD / UNESCO Institute for Statistics / Eurostat international project on Careers of Doctorate Holders (CDH). With the use of regression analysis, we assess the effects of scientific capital, international cooperation, employment, and socio-demographic characteristics of researchers on their productivity, which is measured through their total publication output as well as through the number of papers in peer-reviewed academic journals.
The differences between factors were assessed for two generations of researchers – below 40 years old, and above. It was shown that the quality of scientific capital, measured through diversity of research experience, has a stronger impact on research productivity, rather than the age or other socio-demographic characteristics of doctorate holders. It was also demonstrated that direct economic stimuli and actual research productivity of researchers are weakly correlated. Consequently, we identified that a potentially winning strategy for universities and research institutions that want to improve their performance indicators would be to provide younger scholars with wider opportunities for professional growth, including intense global cooperation in the professional community.
The article focuses on how to enhance the innovation performance in companies. It looks at the factors that define innovative activities at companies as well as the various kinds of corporate innovations. The author stresses importance of special training programs for managers, and suggests the need to take the specifics of local economic, cultural, and other factors into account when implementing relevant educational and policy initiatives aimed at fostering innovation.
To enable the sustainable development of the entrepreneurship theory its agenda needs comprehensive adjustments, and refocusing on new areas such as social, institutional entrepreneurship, etc. Research in the field should go beyond Western societies, covering the so-called transitional economies and emerging markets. There are some very important contextual differences between these societies, which make the entrepreneurship specific and make the investigation of new institutions and actors important, which might become challenging subjects of the future entrepreneurship theory.
An essential element of modern economic models regarding the development and implementation of innovation is the various forms of interaction between stakeholders engaged in innovative activities with a view to exchanging knowledge and technologies. The intensity and quality of this interaction becomes all the more important when assessing the level of development of innovation systems, while the embeddedness of certain organisations and enterprises in a network of such contacts shapes the long-term effectiveness and impact of their work. This article assesses the degree of involvement of Russian innovative enterprises and scientific organisations in processes to create, transfer, and acquire technologies (including purchasing and selling ready-made machines and equipment, and various methods to transfer intangible scientific and technological results).
The article examines Russia’s dependence on hightech imported goods. We improve the OECD hightechnology product classification by increasing the level of disaggregation, accounting for new goods, ensuring comparability over time, and differentiating goods by technological level on quite high levels of disaggregation. We describe the major trends in the world market for high-tech goods and identify the leading countries in each sector (most frequently, China, Germany, Republic of Korea, Switzerland, and Singapore) primarily by calculating net exports of high-tech goods in these sectors. We also assess Russian competitive positions in the global market for high-tech goods by sectors, applying the newly developed competitiveness index, and measure Russian dependence on high-tech goods imported from countries that recently imposed sanctions against Russia. We show that Russia’s economy is highly dependent on imports of pharmaceutical goods and medical equipment, machinery and equipment (except nuclear reactors, fuel elements, engines and turbines), and electrical equipment. The sectors with most imports originating from ‘sanctionimposing’ countries are aircraft, medical and optical equipment, engines and turbines, and pharmaceutical goods. Computers and electronic equipment are at the opposite pole: in these sectors, China is the world leader and the key partner for Russia.
The objective of this paper is to analyse the scope for improving the empirical and methodological foundation of global value chains (GVCs) research and for making relevant political decisions, primarily through applying Foresight methodology. The authors review the major trends of global value chains’ development, specific features of Russia’s participation in them, and the necessary steps to increase the quality and efficiency of this participation, in particular in the changing geopolitical context. Special attention was paid to the theoretical, methodological, and empirical aspects of GVC research which are far from adequate (we primarily mean international databases such as TiVA and WIOD developed with the participation of the OECD and the WTO): they need to be supplemented with advanced tools to improve their forecasting potential, as well as their practical and strategic orientation. To this end, approaches which would make it possible to research the interconnections between global processes and trends with regional and national innovation-based development tendencies become of crucial importance. Application of Foresight methodology may significantly contribute to researching the GVC phenomenon, being a major logical step towards creating advanced research and policy tools to mobilise available resources and coordinate stakeholders’ actions to increase global competitiveness. The paper presents several case studies which describe the practical application of Foresight methodology to analyse Russian participation in various GVCs, giving examples of specific product and service groups. The authors conclude that both full-scale Foresight studies and specific components thereof could be applied for the purposes of GVC analysis, strategic planning, and political decision making.
The shipbuilding sector’s multiple contributions to the social and economic development, as well as to science and technology, of major maritime countries mean that the sector attracts strong interest of entrepreneurs, researchers, and government agencies. Meanwhile the diverse forms of inter-industrial interaction, and specific aspects associated with building high-technology vessels require significant investments. Hence that is a significant challenge in a context of increasingly uncertain future demand for innovative products. What will the global shipbuilding industry look like in the next 10-15 years? What market niches will open ‘windows of opportunity’ for the Russian shipbuilding industry? Experts from industrial companies and research organisations answered these and other questions as part of a foresight study conducted by the HSE ISSEK jointly with the Krylov State Research Centre. The industry is highly dependent on various global environmental, energy, demographic, food, transport and technological factors. Accordingly, the prospects for technological development of the Russian shipbuilding and ship repair industry were analysed in the context of global, national, and industry-specific challenges, trends, drivers and limitations. The study compiled a vision of the global shipbuilding’s future based on the analysis of the expert community’s opinions, strategic documents, programmes, and forecasts. The vision comprises multiple images covering more than 400 technologies and products grouped into 11 subject areas: ecology and environment protection; engines and mechanisms; ship designs; new materials and processing technologies; information technologies and automated systems; navigation; telecommunications; energy supply and energy saving; safety and security; management and control; vessels’ life cycle technologies; production technologies. Analysis of inter-industrial interaction revealed synergies by applying technological innovations created in other industries in the shipbuilding sector. The four possible shipbuilding development scenarios until 2030 are proposed taking into account key uncertainty factors and strategic ‘forks.’ These scenarios enabled us to identify high-priority areas with a potential to implement the full innovation cycle – from research and development to commercialisation of end products. The study’s plausible conclusion is that the Russian shipbuilding industry’s competitive advantages in the global market can be achieved by implementing active government policies to support the production of high-technology vessels and marine equipment to develop mineral deposits on the continental shelf.
Investment in research and innovation faces increasing scrutiny in countries that already do a lot of it. How much investment is optimal? How can we tell if and when our research activities offer less value for the dollar spent on them? How can we ensure that the benefits of investments accrue to those who incur the cost?
Theoretical and applied studies about monitoring technology trends are carried out by organizations at global, national, sectoral, and corporate levels. Demand for them comes from the government, business, academic institutions, as well as the general public. Qualitative methods (expert interviews, surveys, workshops, etc.) play a significant role in large practical projects. At the same time, there is a need to validate expert assessments with quantitative methods, which involve searching for implicit signs of technological change based on analysing large volume of information. Approaches that have been developed in the framework of theoretical research are based on integrating qualitative and quantitative methods, with an emphasis on the latter. They aim to create a well-grounded methodology for identifying global technology trends, define the necessary criteria, and use automated tools for processing large amounts of data.
The paper presents an analytical review of international practices for monitoring global technology trends, as well as the key theoretical approaches and methods, which have been developed in this field. Next, it analyses the purposes of technology monitoring projects, examines the types of organizations implementing them, the methodology and results of such projects; explores the key areas of theoretical research on technology monitoring, and studies the criteria for determining the trends, as well as possible classifications of them. In addition, it presents the main stages of technology monitoring, studies the methodological trajectories of this process and information sources that can be used by various researchers. Finally, the paper analyses the combinations of methods that serve as the basis for identifying different types of technology trends.
The aim of this study is to evaluate the import dependence of Russian industrial firms as well as analyze the ‘switch’ to using Russian products and technologies in the context of their availability and firms’ interest in them. The main information source for the study was a survey of company executives conducted in September-October 2015. The obtained results suggest that in quantitative terms the import consumption levels for the manufacturing industries in Russia are relatively small, especially compared with the corresponding levels of Western Europe countries. At the same time, about two thirds of the surveyed companies are significantly dependent on imports, primarily imports of machinery and equipment. The main reason for the use of imports is the absence of Russian analogues. If they are present, there are problems with the low quality of those Russian analogues and the fact that they are not in line with the client’s technological requirements. In general a higher level of import dependence is typical for high-tech and successful companies, which means that these companies are the most vulnerable to any import restrictions.Current import dependency level does not satisfy many companies which forces them to try to reduce this dependency: mostly it takes the form of switching to national suppliers, slightly less often – import diversification. The Russian import substitution policy is associated with an attempt revive, modernize or create the missing production elements in the national economy, i.e. it is essentially vertical. However, in the absence of close work with the horizontal measures, such as the development of certain critical technologies, the formation of new areas of knowledge and filling previously missing science competences, such a policy is characterized by a ‘limited shelf life’, constant lag, with a focus primarily on the price competitiveness. All this generates an expansion of an economy that is highly sensitive to currency fluctuations. A proactive import substitution policy linked to new emerging markets is needed.
Knowledge-intensive business services (KIBS) industries demonstrate some of the highest levels of innovation in most developed economies. However, these industries are very heterogeneous. Research on their innovative activities is needed in order to provide evidence to inform policy instruments to support such companies. In this paper, we analyze the innovation configurations of 477 Russian KIBS companies. First, we use factor analysis to study the key features of their innovative behavior: different innovation types and different features of demand for KIBS from innovative clients (volume, range and level of customization of services). Three factors emerge, and the KIBS companies are divided into six clusters through the prism of these factors. The clusters are: non-innovators; organizational change innovators; marketing innovators; technology-oriented innovators; non-technological innovators and diversified innovators. Finally, we examine the distribution of companies across the clusters in terms of their size and the type of services
Contrary to more advanced countries, Russia’s district heating hardly embraces radical innovations. Moving forward with breakthrough solutions, even if they have proven their effectiveness at leading European companies and are supported by federal and regional authorities, encounters significant obstacles. These obstacles include inflexible corporate management, including when interacting with customers, and inexperience in creating internal corporate startups and managing risks in the early stages of R&D. The authors review the innovation activity of heating companies, analyze the difficulties in adopting innovations, and compare the strategies and performance indicators of Russian and Finnish energy companies. Special emphasis is given to the Moscow district heating system. Analysis shows that its’ strategic development in the past decade has focused primarily on reframing the organizational set-up, not innovation. As a result, business processes and cash flows were largely streamlined but European level of productivity was not achieved. The creation of a single vertically integrated entity in Moscow’s energy industry has limited the ability to develop alternative district heating and cooling systems. Energy infrastructure innovation centres are sparse and feature limited specialization and competition. Large companies tend to follow the ‘closed innovation’ model where R&D activities are concentrated within an organization, and focus on incremental innovations while lagging in radical innovations in cogeneration and trigeneration. Under these conditions, short-term planning dominates, while mid- and long-term planning are virtually non-existent. The paper concludes with recommended measures to support the innovative development of Russian heating companies that can be split into institutional and corporate recommendations. The first group concerns stimulating competition in the heat supply market and creating a stable legal and investment environment. The second group calls for technological modernization, development of long-term corporate strategies that include investment programmes, systematic analysis of the best international practices for innovative development, and the formation of partner networks involving foreign innovative, consulting, and research centres.
With high growth on domestic markets, many firms in emerging economies face a tradeoff between using their competitive advantages in foreign markets or innovating in domestic markets. By analyzing export and innovation data for a large dataset of Chinese firms, we uncover a specific productivity sorting pattern of firms over exporting and innovation. As expected, high productivity firms both export and innovate and low productivity firms do not export or innovate. Interestingly, low-medium productivity firms export more than they innovate, whereas high-medium productivity firms innovate more than they export. Clearly, these findings have important implications for the new trade literature that stresses the primacy of high productivity for entry into export markets.
The level of innovation activity of the Russian enterprises is inferior to the level of innovation activity of enterprises in developed countries. At the same time, Russian enterprises actively use fixed-term contracts, which help them to reduce the labor costs and adapt to changes in demand, to increase the flexibility of labor and improve the selection of employees at the workplaces. Fixed-term contracts can contribute to innovation, because they enhance the flexibility of labor relations and create savings in the use of workers. However, fixed-term contracts can reduce the likelihood of innovation because they reduce investment in human capital, leading to a reduction in labor productivity. Which trends dominate in labor relations is the subject of this study.For the study we used data about enterprises from the annual Russian Enterprises Survey in 2014. The sample is representative for Russia and includes small, medium and large enterprises with more than 30 employees in seven sectors (mining, industry, construction, transport and communications, trade, finance, business services). For the analysis, we used bivariate probit model, Heckman correction model and probit model with continuous endogenous regressor (the share of workers with fixed-term labor contracts). The results showed that fixed-term contracts have a positive effect on the innovation activity of enterprises only when they are used in a limited quantity. With an increase in the percentage of workers with fixed-term contracts, the likelihood of innovation activity of enterprises declines.
In recent years, knowledge-intensive business services (KIBS) have become extremely important in the knowledge-based economy. KIBS concentrate a well-qualified workforce and create high levels of valueadded services, serve as a driver for the innovationbased development of many countries [Santos-Vijande et al., 2013]. However, the growth rates of this sector in Russia considerably fell after the 2008 crisis; some KIBS-industries could not even reach pre-crisis volumes of production and the share of this sector in GDP significantly declined [Berezin, Doroshenko, 2015]. The crisis trends in Russian economy at the end of 2014 and at the beginning of 2015 had a strong negative impact on KIBS. We show that the share of companies with decreasing revenues has dramatically grown in all industries. The demand side has also changed: the client base is now more unstable and customers more regularly fail to fulfill contract obligations. An industry analysis reveals significant divergences in the rates and trajectories for development of Russian KIBS industries. However, the sector heterogeneity might be also found in KIBS of other countries. The paper is based on both survey of 656 Russian KIBS producers and in-depth interviews with 24 leading KIBS experts.
Knowledge-Intensive Business Services (KIBS) are seen to be a core sector of the so-called 'knowledge economy', and already play an important role in developed economies. The KIBS providers are both innovate themselves and provide their clients with knowledge and learning opportunities. This paper examines the status of KIBS in Russia, and explores some key issues in their role in innovation using data from surveys of KIBS firms and their clients.
Knowledge-Intensive Business Services (KIBS) are seen to be core features of the so-called ‘knowledge economy’, and they already play an important role in developed economies. They both innovate themselves and provide their clients with important knowledge and learning opportunities. This paper examines the status of KIBS in Russia, and explores some key issues in their role in innovation using data from surveys of KIBS firms and their clients in Russia. We note that KIBS are often highly customized, and many new services prove difficult to replicate. KIBS are closely tailored to solving the problems of specific customers, and thus these services typically involve KIBS consumers in a co-production process. Both the formal supplier and the formal user of the service are engaged together in service production, allowing for mutual knowledge transfers and learning. Use of KIBS is shown to affect customers' propensity to innovate, confirming the importance of this sector for the innovation system.
The primary long-term socio-economic challenges facing Russia – both global and country-specific in nature — drive demand for a range of technologies. We explore several groups of challenges, namely urbanization, demographic, socio-economic, the consequences of ageing, geopolitical, restricted access to key technological competences, climate change and its ecological consequences, as well as technological challenges largely associated with risks in ICT and biotech development, and the emergence of so-called ‘killer technologies’ that induce structural transformation in the economy. We identify four groups of key factors inf luencing demand for new technology. First, those factors that strengthening Russia’s role as a provider of key natural resources for the global economy. Second, of equal importance are those factors that support import substitution of various products of the global market, including electronic components, chemicals, and food products. Third, developing centres of technological competences plays a significant role, especially in export-oriented, manufacturing, and services sectors. These include nuclear energy, software, weapons and military equipment, military aircraft, and energy machinery. Finally, technological advancement would occur by integrating Russia within global technological value chains with external system integrators in pharmaceuticals, machine-building, petroleum products, and some ICT sub-sectors.