|
Strategies
|
4–17
|
As dependence on the extraction of natural resources for three BRICS countries studied in this paper (Brazil, Russia and South Africa) seems inevitable in the short and even medium-term perspective, these countries will face the need for deep modernization of their extractive industries. This paper sets out to analyze the R&D policies of Brazil, Russia, and South Africa; including Canada with its sizeable and innovative extractive industry to offer a perspective for benchmarking. The methodology of the research combines content analysis of major scientific publications and monitoring research results, as well as policy analysis of key national government regulations in place. We consulted the data produced by major international statistical agencies like the OECD Statistics Directorate and Eurostat. Besides that, there are not many differences in the innovation policy instruments used in developed countries vs. fast growing economies. Rather, it is their synergy, governance, targeted design, and application that make up all the differences. All four countries that were studied emphasized the overarching R&D-related policy goals like achieving a certain GDP percentage of R&D investment. However, it seems that definite fine-tuning of policy tools and structural reforms successfully implemented in developed countries is required in the case of developing countries. Future research should focus more on the necessity of a fine-tuned policy mix for commodity-based economies to the requirements of the existing industry base. As the entrepreneurial activity in these countries is naturally limited and clustered around resource-based industries, research on policy-making should more strongly focus on companies of this sector and their influence on entrepreneurship for the economy as a whole. |
Innovation and Economy
|
18–30
|
The paper discusses methodologies used to adapt to the Russian context the usual measures of STI performance, developed and implemented under the framework of the European Manufacturing Survey (EMS), and reports on results. Two rounds of surveys were conducted in 2009-2010 covering around 2000 Russian companies. The third round is planned for 2012. The paper outlines how innovative activities in the real sector of the Russian economy can be measured. The EMS toolkit must be significantly adapted for the goals of the Russian survey. The authors harmonized their approach with the guidelines of the Oslo Manual. They covered the manufacturing and service sectors. Since the results show implications of the global crisis and the performance of the tools of state regulation, it was important to use a methodology comparable to that of the EMS on key parameters. The questionnaire developed to survey Russian companies aimed to capture the complexity of innovation activity. It provides information on such indicators as the availability of completed and early-stage innovations, the technological level of production, the structure of collaborative relations, and environmental and resource sparing issues. The outcome of the project is a new source of empirical data for analyzing innovation by key firms in regard to technological and modernizing organizational issues. The results showed differences by sector for the following: innovation funding priorities; motivation/stimuli to innovation activity; the level of competition in various markets; factors impeding innovation; the level of development of innovation management tools; and the scope of firms’ demand for innovation infrastructure. The paper shows that far from all Russian firms considered “innovative” focus in a straightforward manner on innovation. Most industrial companies act according to in-house non-market-based rules of competition. These firms are very pessimistic about the prospects of promoting their own products in new markets. Innovation (especially radical) is not a business priority. Finally, the paper shows how results of the survey can be used in theoretical and applied research on innovation in Russia and develops policy recommendations. |
Science
|
32–38
|
The Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education has recently undertaken attempts to reform the Polish Academy of Sciences. Different social actors took part in this long political and legal process. Contrary to the public debate, in which the reforms are being defined as a a component of modernization of Polish science and higher education, the author consider it as means of redistributing the balance of power in the Polish academia. It allows not only to identify changes but also to provide their better understanding. The main focus is directed to the political confrontation between the Polish academic oligarchy and the government. |
Science
|
40–54
|
Аpproximately one half of all Russian state owned institutions are created for implementation of managerial, social, cultural and other non-commercial functions. The most significant legal novelties for them are connected with the adoption of an amended Budgetary Code (2007) and singling out three types of state institutions – autonomous (2006), state and new type of budget-funded (2010). These new legal opportunities have broadened prospects for reforming state scientific institutions which comprise almost one third of the overall population of R&D units in Russia. Anti and post-crisis policies of the Russian government are focused on efficient use of budgetary allocations, restructuring and shrinking the network of budgetary-supported institutions, as well as on boosted economic modernization and transition to innovation-based economic growth. It makes the reform of state scientific institutions urgent. An article provides detailed analysis of resources and productivity of state R&D institutions in Russia and describes potential directions of their restructuring. |
Master Class
|
56–68
|
Thе paper provides the first results of multi-stage foresight process aimed at evaluating prospects of S&T cooperation between EU and Southeast Asian countries. It describes the procedure and the results of a scenario building workshop held in Bogor, Indonesia, where drivers and shapers of co-operation between mentioned regions for 10-years perspective were derived. In addition, the distinctive features of applying foresight methodology to the issue of multilateral S&T cooperation are analysed. |
Events
|
70–74
|
On 15 June, 2010, the Information Day on the Thematic Research Priority “Environment (including Climate Change)” of the 7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development of the EU (FP7) took place at the National Research University - Higher School of Economics. The event was organized in the framework of the “S&T International Cooperation Network for Eastern European and Central Asian Countries” (IncoNet EECA) project funded by the European Commission. The main goals of the event were: to discuss practical instruments to support national research priorities setting in the field of environment; to announce forthcoming calls for proposals under “Environment (including Climate Change)”; to present the relevant success stories and outline the thematic areas for further EU-Russia cooperation. |
|