Upload
kaida
View
37
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Russian Science Policy in Post-Soviet Period. Irina Dezhina Institute for World Economy and International Relations, Russian Academy of Sciences [email protected]. Contents. Major characteristics of R&D sector in Russia Evolution of government reforms (1992-till present). - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Russian Science Policy in Post-Soviet Period
Irina DezhinaInstitute for World Economy and
International Relations, Russian Academy of Sciences
Contents1. Major characteristics of R&D sector in Russia2. Evolution of government reforms (1992-till present).3. Successes and failures in support of science as a public
good: new forms of financing integration of research and education organizational changes
4. Successes and failures in support of science as a source of innovations:
involvement of business infrastructure for commercialization
5. Evaluation of innovation policy in Russia: InnoTrend Chart6. Major flaws in government regulation.7. Directions for improvement.
R&D in Russia: Major Characteristics
62% of financing comes from the federal budget. Its share is slowly growing.
73% of organizations conducting R&D are state-owned (are federal property).
77% of all personnel in R&D work in state-owned R&D organizations.Russian R&D sector is mostly government-owned and government-financed.
Organizations Implementing R&D by Type of Ownership
73,4
4,9
20,5
0,6
0,6
73,8
11,8
11,8
1,5
1,0
0,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0 60,0 70,0 80,0
Federal
Priv ate
Public-Priv ate
Joint Russian-Foreign
Other
percent
1995 2005
Federal Expenditures on Civilian R&D in Russia
Financing 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 (plan)
Approved budget, billion rubles 30,3 40,2 46,2 56,0 71,7 89,0 110,0
Approved budget, billion USD 0,94 1,37 1,66 1,96 2,72 3,65 4,51
Increase to the previous year, % (current USD)
-45,7 21,2 18,1 38,8 34,2 23,6
Foreign Financing of Russian and Eastern European Science
EASTERN EUROPE AND RUSSIA: 2003
9,0
10,7
3,3
4,6
4,8
0,0
2,0
4,0
6,0
8,0
10,0
12,0
Hungary Russia Poland Czech Republic Slovakia
%
RUSSIA
10,312,0
9,47,67,6
9,08,0
8,6
16,9
0,02,04,06,08,0
10,012,014,016,018,0
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
perce
nt
Business Enterprise and Government Expenditures on R&D (data for 2003)
62
30
40
54
23
60
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
%
OECD countries Eastern Europe Russia
Business enterprise expenditures Government expenditures
Researchers in Russian Science
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Number of researchers per 10 000 of economically active population
74 78 75 74 72 69 58
Researchers, in percent to the year 1991
47,8 48,5 48,1 47,2 46,6 45,4 45,2
Researchers, in percent to the previous year
101,4 99,1 98,2 98,8 98,0 97,4 99,4
Age Structure of Russian Researchers
Year Younger then 29
30-39 40-49 50-59 60 and older
Total
2000 10,6 15,6 26,1 26,9 20,8 100
2002 13,5 13,8 23,9 27,0 21,8 100
2004 15,3 13,0 21,9 27,8 22,0 100
2006 17,0 13,1 19,0 27,8 32,1 100
Researchers in Russia and USA: Distribution by Age Groups(Russia – 2004; USA – 2003)
21,9 22,3 22,0
27,8
13,015,3
26,727,8
7,1
16,1
0,05,0
10,015,020,025,030,0
younger then29
30-39 40-49 50-59 older then 60
perce
nt
Russia USA
Changes in Financing and R&D Labor Force
43,3
91,5
16,623,3 19,4 22,7
30,6
44,547,248,151,855,2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1992 1996 1997 2001 2002 2005
In %
to 1
991
Financing from the federal budget Number of researchers (headcount)
New Policy Encouraging Mobility “Brain drain” is now seen as part of
international mobility The discussion is around ways to
collaborate with diaspora with the aim to attract some emigrated researchers back to Russian science
Possible way to attract researchers back to Russia: to develop different types of initiatives in research and education stimulating “partial” return
Who Constitutes Potential Brain Gain?
Tenured faculty at universities Researchers completing their second-third
post-doc Researchers working under temporary
contracts (70-80% from total diaspora) “Aging” researchers (around 65 years old)
– because of limits established in European countries
““Mirror” Laboratories in Russia Mirror” Laboratories in Russia (Case of Nizhny Novgorod State University)(Case of Nizhny Novgorod State University)
Foreign laboratory
“Mirror” laboratory
Russian researcher from diaspora or foreign researcher
• Foreign co-leader• Russian co-leader
Leadership
Research tasks
• Own research• Joint research projects
• Joint research projects• Own research
R&D personnel• Staff• Training of researchers from “mirror” laboratory
• Staff• Invited researchers
Financing• Federal budget• Domestic and foreign grants• Joint grants
• Federal budget• Goal-oriented projects, Federal goal- oriented programs• Domestic and foreign grants• Joint grants
““Mirror” Laboratories: Mutual Mirror” Laboratories: Mutual InterestsInterests
Foreign laboratory
“Mirror” laboratory
• Access to high quality
research expertise
• Integration in international
R&D Projects
• Raising quality of education
• Attraction of youth to science
• Promotion of mobility
• Access to additional sources
of financing
• Access to high quality
workforce
•Minimization of expenditures
on R&D
•Additional sources of
financing
• “Personal factors” –
recognition in home country,
linkages with relatives and
friends
Research Productivity
32
3839
47
74
0,16
1,17
1,27
0,620,68
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Russia Slovakia Poland Hungary Czech Republic
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
1,2
1,4
Personnel in R&D per 10 000 economically active population (2003)Publications per researcher during 1996-1999
Patents Granted by USPTO / Million population(average for 2001-2005)
324,12
278,03
164,38
146,45
77,64
1,34
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
USA
Japan
Finland
G7
Western Europe
RUSSIA
Policy Towards Science
Science as a subject for regulation
Science as a public goodScience as source
of innovations
Major Tasks for Transition Period
Government tasks during reforms
Saving best science Restructuring Creation of new institutions
PaymentsStatus
Organizational reform
Infrastructure Legal
basis
Funds
Periodization of Reforms 1992-1996: preservation of science during
economic crisis; creation of new organizational and institutional framework.
1997-2001: frequent changes in science & innovation policy. Development of innovative infrastructure.
2002-2007: development of strategic vision for science & innovation policy. Attempts to start structural reforms in science, create favorable environment for innovations.
Successes and Failures in Supporting Science as a Public Good
Successes
Grants
Program financing
Integration of researchand education
Support of young scholars
Failures
Grants- small scale
Outdated schemesof block funding
Flaws in expertsystem
Lack of coordination
Fragmentedmeasures
Forms of Financing of R&D in Russia
Types of financing, % to total 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Block financing 67,4 70,3 73,7 73,2 69,7
Program financing 24,9 21,6 18,1 19,9 23,1
Government foundations (grant financing) 7,7 8,1 8,2 6,9 7,2
Changes in Forms of Financing Introduction of Budgeting Oriented on
Results Grown Share of Program Financing:
75% of Ministry of Education and Science Budget
Share of government foundations stays the same: 8,5% (by-law, total for 3 foundations) of the total civilian expenditures on R&D from the federal budget
Russian Science Foundations: General Principals of Operation
“Bottom-up” approach: applications are initiated by groups of researchers
Peer review evaluation of proposals (only domestic experts)
Financing of individual projects rather than institutions
Accountability in the budgets of projects Obligation to give a full report of results
after project is completed
Major Government-Supported Science Foundations in Russia
Foundation Year of Establish-
ment
Budget
Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR)
1992 6% of expenditures on civilian science from the federal budget. Approx. 153 million euro in 2007
Russian Foundation for Humanities (RHF)
1994 1% of expenditures on civilian science from the federal budget. Approx. 25 million euro in 2007
Fund for Assistance to Small Innovative Enterprises
1994 1,5% of expenditures on civilian science from the federal budget. Approx. 38 million euro in 2007
Current State of Integration of Research and Education
Integration
1071 universities 451 RAS institutes
406 universities conduct R&D
17.1% teachers do research34% Academy researchers teach
350 basic chairs at universities
Universities receive 3,8% of civilian budget on R&D
Academy institutes receive35% of civilian budget
on R&D
Fundamental Research in Russian Universities and Academy Institutes(in percent to the total expenditures on fundamental research)
20002001
20022003
20042005
Univ ersities
Academy institutes
61,2 62,6 65,663,7
69,4 71,5
12,0 13,812,3 15,4
12,812,3
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
perc
ent
Problems of Integration
Innovation activity in universities is not considered as primary type of activity and it has many legal limitations.
Teaching loads are high and this prohibits lecturers from active involvement in research.
Research divisions and teaching divisions in universities are regulated differently; research activity is less beneficial in terms of material support and stability.
New Charter of the Russian Academy of Sciences Approved by the Government of RF in
November 2007, will come into force January 1, 2009. 2008 – transition period
New status New scheme of financing – through
program of fundamental research, in the form of subsidies
More freedom in innovation activity
Changes in Organization and Governance of the RAS
Former RAS Charter Suggestions developed by MOES - “Model” RAS Charter
Approved RAS Charter
President of RAS is elected by the General Assembly of RAS
President of RAS is elected by General assembly of RAS and approved by the President of RF
President of RAS is elected by General assembly of RAS and approved by the President of RF
RAS Charter is approved by the General Assembly of RAS
RAS Charter is accepted by the General Assembly of RAS and approved by the Government of RF
RAS Charter is accepted by the General Assembly of RAS and approved by the Government of RF
Academy has status of government, self-directed organization and is financed from the federal budget
Academy has status of budgetary establishment, and has the right to govern its activity
Academy is nonprofit research organization created in the form of Government Academy of Sciences. It is self-directed organization.
There is no Supervisory Board in the structure of the Academy
Supervisory Board is collective authority of the Academy. It consists from three representatives of the Academy, three – of the Government, and one from each of the following organizations: State Duma, Federation Council, and Administration of the President
There is no Supervisory Board in the structure of the Academy
There are no age limitations for any administrative positions at the Academy
There is age limit (70 years old) for all top administrative positions at the Academy
There are no age limitations for any administrative positions at the Academy
Russian Corporation of Nanotechnologies and Nanotechnology Network
Budget released in 2007 – 130 billion rubles (3.5 billion EURO)
Nanotechnology network: 700 R&D organizations and universities conduct nanotechnology research
In 2007 50% of the budget allocated to MES Program “R&D on Priority Directions of Scientific-Technical Complex of Russia” was spent on research in nanotechnology
MES supported 400 nanotech projects in 2007 Out of 13 megaprojects 8 were related to
nanotechnology Growing number of universities suggest new
courses in nanotechnology
Russian Corporation of Nanotechnologies: Legal Aspects
Rights
Selects R&D projects for financing
Finances educational activities
May conduct entrepreneurship activity
May create nonprofit organizations
May create own funds
Law on bankruptcy is not applicable to the Corporation
Russian Corporation of Nanotechnologies: Expectations and Possible Outcomes
Government expectations include:1. Development of nanotechnology and related
research fields.2. Growing business activity including business
financing of R&D and commercialization.3. New products competitive at international
market. Possible Outcomes:1. Disproportional development of research fields
damaging to the overall development of science.
2. Wasting of budget money because of absence in Russia of high tech businesses.
3. Exporting R&D, as it is now, and not high-tech products.
Successes and Failures in Supporting Science as a Source of Innovations
Successes
PPP
Support of SME
TechnicalInfrastructure
Regulation of IP
Failures
Budgetarylimitations
FailedPrivatization
Absence of humanResources policy
UnderdevelopedLegal regulation
Development of Foresight Procedures Foresight exercise (started in 2007) is one
of the first attempts to attract business to strategic planning.
The Foresight procedures were developing simultaneously by three government agencies.
Current shortages: Lack of coordination (both among agencies and
expert communities); A few experts are acquainted with foresight
methodology. Foresight is viewed as forecast.
Public-Private Partnerships Through Megaprojects 18 large-scale R&D projects (started in 2003)
aimed to foster technological development and to bring closer together research organizations and industrial enterprises.
The initiative had to demonstrate that investments made in hi-tech in Russia may be profitable for investors.
Financing is provided on matching basis with industry.
It was expected that volume of sales is 5 times higher then allocated to megaprojects budget financing.
Examples of Successful Megaprojects: «Development and batch production of new generation
of packing and fire-protective materials for general industrial needs». The materials developed are used in atomic and thermal power engineering, railroad transport, avia-, space-, oil and gas, and chemical industries.
«Development of technologies and production of equipment for nanotechnologies». The equipment is used in organizations working in the area of bio- and nanotechnologies. The equipment is exported to EU countries, South-East Asia, and USA.
«Creation of technologies and industrial production of metal materials with two-fold excess of operating characteristics». These are dual-use high quality steels and welding materials. Their development allowed to stop import of analogous materials.
Megaprojects: Results to the Date
Three megaprojects were considered successful. Volume of sales in them 8-10 times exceeded budgetary investments.
Questionable features of mechanism: R&D are financed only from the federal budget; R&D are implemented only in government or academic
institutes or universities; The role of companies – commercialization and
manufacturing; R&D organization collaborates with one company: this is
anticompetitive approach and there are no dissemination mechanisms.
Innovative Enterprises as Share of Total Industrial Enterprises
10,6
9,6
9,8
10,3
10,5
9,7
9,9
9
9,2
9,4
9,6
9,8
10
10,2
10,4
10,6
per
cen
t
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Types of Innovative Infrastructure in Russia (2006)
Infrastructure in universities, % of total
objects
Science parks 72,7
Innovation-technology centers 24,6
Technology Transfer Offices 69,1
44
32
61
15
68
47
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
science parks innov ation-technology centers TTOs
Total At universities
New Innovative Infrastructure
In 2006 the creation of several new types of innovative infrastructure was initiated by the government:
Co-financed by the government venture funds (Fund of funds and IT fund)
IT technology parks (in 7 regions) Special economic zones (4 high tech
development zones)
Development of Innovative Infrastructure
Innovative Clusters
Special economic zones IT parks
Russian Venture Company Fund for Assistance
Small number of residents Frozen constructing works
15 billion rubles (0.6 billion USD) plusthe same amount for new activities
Positive Developments in Government Approach to Infrastructure Creation
New infrastructure schemes are largely based on elaboration of foreign experience
Previous Russian experience with technology parks and venture financing was taken into account
Government investments are much larger then before – over 380 million EURO in two venture funds
Indirect regulations (tax and custom exemptions for residents) are introduced in zones. IT parks may also receive tax privileges.
Problems Affecting Infrastructural Projects Lack of projects for venture financing
because of inadequate support of seed and start-up stages
Underdeveloped legal basis for venture industry
Bias from side of business against infrastructural projects: Association of managers 2005 survey: only
11% out of 150 surveyed large and medium-size companies welcome creation of zones and venture funds.
Evaluation of Innovation Policy Using EU Metrics
Policy Measure
Document (Law, Program, Government Order,etc.) describing measure
Detailed description of measure in Policy MeasureFiche
Search for documents describing / confirmingEvaluation and monitoring of policy measures
Components of Policy Measure Fiche in InnoTrend Chart
Relevance To LisbonGuidelines
Results,Evaluation,
Impact
Mode ofFinancing
TargetGroup and
Type ofprocess
Novelty
BackgroundAnd
Rationale
Goal ofMeasure,overview
Policy Fiche
Policy Measures: Major Findings
The actual innovation policy measures are mainly aimed at specific support actions and are largely based on direct support of R&D and innovation activity.
Some set of measures (limited) represent combination of direct support with indirect measures and administrative (legal) regulations.
The discussion is on the possibility to introduce more general innovation climate measures.
Three main policy directions: 1) growing attention towards forecasts and Foresight procedures; 2) further development of indirect measures to stimulate innovation; and 3) support for innovation infrastructure.
The Positive and Negative Aspects in
Russian Innovation Policy Implementation Positive:
Formulation of several strategic policy documents
Coordination bodies established on higher federal level. Growing number of ministries and agencies are engaged in the implementation of innovation policy
Growing attention to monitoring and evaluation of innovation policy
Use of mid-term indicators in research policy setting
Development of indirect measures to support innovations and attempts to create general innovation climate
Negative: A lot of innovation policy directions
and priorities are not accompanied by concrete measures. In conceptual papers measures and mechanisms are often incomplete or too descriptive
Lack of cross government coordination
Monitoring and evaluation of policy measures implementation are underdeveloped
Policy measures are not complex and favor direct support R&D and innovation activity
Major Flaws in Government Regulation
Absence of systemic and consistent approach. No regular evaluation and correction, if necessary, of the
government initiatives. Domination of old management practices in decision-
making process (lack of inter-agency coordination, not transparent expert evaluation, no responsibility of government officials for their decisions, no enforcement procedures).
Absence of serious attention and recognition of importance of science at the government level. Science is not seen as part of innovation system.
Areas for Improvement of Government Science Policy Monitoring, analysis and elaboration of previous
experience, development of systemic evaluation
Increase of openness of science policy and its results
Strengthening of horizontal linkages among government agencies, responsible for science and innovation policy, and improvement in coordination of their initiatives