ISSN 1995-459X print E-ISSN 2312-9972 online ISSN 2500-2597 online English
Editor-in-chief Leonid Gokhberg
|
2011. vol. 5. No. 4
|
Editorial note
Strategies
|
8–30
|
The paper reviews the work of the expert group “The transition from fostering innovation to innovation-based growth” on adjusting the Strategy for socio-economic development of Russia up to 2020. Panel experts have undertaken a detailed analysis of the state of the art of the Russian innovation sphere and proposed recommendations on the strategic priorities for state policy, as well as on specific regulatory tools that can be implemented in the near future. Among the key challenges identified are the increasing Russian dependence on foreign markets, the growing socio-economic risks, the difficulties with adequately responding to the rapidly changing global trends, the significant gaps between the main actors of the innovation system, the lack of sufficient access to new technologies and innovations by different social groups.The most significant positive trends include: the introduction of new regulatory tools, the gradual expansion of the number of players in the innovation sector and the growth of public R&D funding. The experts propose three possible scenarios, as follows: the inertial scenario, which implies low rates of economic growth while preserving the dependence of the economy on extractive industries; the progressive scenario, which presumes the accelerated integration into global processes and transition to the post-industrial model, and the moderate scenario, which has the highest probability of realization. The implementation of a scenario depends on political choices made by legislators, regulators, scientists and others. For example, in education there is a need to choose between “soft” adaptation of existing educational programs to meet the changing needs of the economy and greater emphasis on the development of specific professional skills. The paper also formulates some directions for innovation policy. It focuses on support for innovative projects that meet tight technology priorities to those that foster mass innovation in all sectors of the economy. It differentiates priorities by sector in regard to various criteria: policy instruments, innovation in high- and low-tech sectors, decentralization, regional empowerment, institutional development, business partnerships; and network cooperation. It focuses on output-oriented decision making and balancing thematic and functional priorities to reduce failures in the innovation cycle. The authors emphasize the social effects of innovation policy. They discuss the need for supporting the creative class now existing as well as training future entrepreneurs, managers and professionals for the innovation sector and for the economy as a whole. |
Expert opinion
Strategies
|
32–48
|
Marina Boykova— Executive Editor, Foresight–Russia journal, Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge, National Research University — Higher School of Economics, E-mail: foresight-journal@hse.ru Address: 20 Myasnitskaya str., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation. Irina Ilyina—Director Centre for Regional Studies, Institute for Regional Studies and Urban Planning, National Research University — Higher School of Economics, E-mail: iilina@hse.ru Address: 20 Myasnitskaya str., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation. Mikhail Salazkin—Junior Research Fellow, Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge, National Research University — Higher School of Economics, E-mail: msalazkin@hse.ru Address: 20 Myasnitskaya str., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation. The increasing complexity of globalization is reflected in the rapid growth of urban areas and expanding mega cities, where the majority of the world’ population is concentrated and where new trends in society and economy develop. This paper addresses the need for a new paradigm for urban development studies. Experts tend to share the view that the radically changing global of urban growth requires rethinking. The urgent task is to move from the concept of “growth at any price” to a philosophy based on the healthy and creative city. The paper explores new approaches, concepts and policy instruments that are essential for the moving toward a focus on the urban environment quality. The kind of lateral thinking that presumed an explicit division of urban territory into functional areas is no longer up to date. It is necessary to take a more creative, synthetic and multidisciplinary approaches. One can envision a city from a holistic perspective and see challenges as opportunities. A city should function as a single system, in other words, serving as one large project in which creativity and innovation are core elements. There is no template for such a city: each city will have its particular features. The authors review some successfully implemented urban strategies to help build a model of planning for cities embarking on innovative development. To realize such strategies, a critical mass of innovators to lead the process of urban transformation is necessary. Emphasis in planning therefore falls on human capital and on new flexible interdisciplinary strategies to identify sources of potential growth to develop and use advanced policy instruments to promote and establish new approaches. Some restructuring of the governance system should accompany new training for earmarked programmes, partnering with research universities, creating R&D departments within municipal governing bodies, and involving citizens in decision-making process regarding city development. Building up such human factors will determine whether the city will suffer gradual decline or become a “vibrant” environment with a higher quality of life. |
Expert opinion
Innovation and Economy
|
50–65
|
Marina Doroshenko— Head, Department for Analytical Research, Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge, National Research University — Higher School of Economics, E-mail: mdoroshenko@hse.ru Address:20 Myasnitskaya str., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation. Knowledge-intensive services (KIS), described in a large qualitative literature, are essential to high innovation performance and are thus one of the key segments of the knowledge economy. This paper addresses theinnovative capacity of the KIS from data obtained from an annual monitoring survey of the KIS sector performed by the HSE ISSEK since 2006.It shows that the evolution of the KIS sector is dominated by two vectors, aimed respectively at standardizing and customizing services. The latter is especially gaining momentum–distinctiveness is a key competitive advantage for a service provider and is likely to remain so, as innovative and diversified production expand. Also, the recent financial and economic crisis significantly spurred service firms’ innovation activity. A distinctive feature of the KIS sector is the ability to improve consumers’ innovative capacity by means of “smart” services. Accounting for a growing demand for product, organizational, governance and marketing innovations tailored to customers, customization will move forward into other sectors. This makes a significant contribution to the evolving economics of knowledge. KIS will also serve as an effective tool to foster innovative behavior among managers. As customers’ innovate more and more across a range of services and demand more innovation, manufacturers will be motivated to develop more advanced services. The process is thus self-reinforcing. |
|
66–76
|
Thomas Gstraunthaler— Leading Research Fellow, Laboratory for Economics of Innovation, Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge, National Research University — Higher School of Economics, E-mail: tgstraunthaler@hse.ru Address: 20 Myasnitskaya str., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation. Galina Sagieva— Head, Division for Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer Studies, Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge, National Research University — Higher School of Economics, E-mail: sagieva@hse.ru Address: 20 Myasnitskaya Str., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation. This paper attempts to summarize and systematize the landscape of the global venture capital industry. It presents major basic business models and investment strategies, assesses the contribution of venture capital (VC) to economic growth, and the incentives and constraints for VC’s development, and it identifies research gaps in this area. Venture capital is often regarded as the only source of support for start-ups, particularly for those in high-tech innovative sectors. The authors explore the reasons for this. In contrast to more traditional investors, VCs provide targeted investment, and they maintain a long-term strategic focus. Financial capital is only one benefit they provide for entrepreneurs. They provide industry knowledge and social capital, often vital for success. Also, venture capital serves as an intermediation device in finding further finance. These benefits focus the attention of public administration in venture capital and pro-investment policies to build strength and assure future competitiveness. The authors conclude that governments can only do so much to spur creative thinking and entrepreneurial activities. Their support is best placed in education, oriented toward a culture which rewards competitive and entrepreneurial thinking. Results of such policy mature slowly but they can be vital. In conclusion, the authors point to the need to introduce new and refined research strategies promoting VC. One key focus to study venture capital is to understand how the industry itself is developing through its own drive. It would help to examine comparatively a country’s initiatives, which would allow policy makers to understand where the industry is going and how best to support or participate in growth. It would also allow distinguishing among segments of the venture capital market. Finally, further analysis of the VC industry should be conducted through the prism of its internationalization. |
Expert opinion
Events
|
78–87
|
A Research Workshop «Foresight and Science, Technology and Innovation Policies: Best Practices» organized by the HSE Institute of Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge took place at HSE on October 13-14, 2011. The meeting was coincided with the two hallmark events: firstly, the creation on the ISSEK basis of the two international laboratories conducting research in the field of S&T and economics of innovation, respectively, and secondly, the formation of the Expert Group on Innovation Policy aimed at preparing proposals to adjust Strategy – 2020 for the Russian Federation. So far the workshop was focused on presenting interim results of the activities of the mentioned teams. Presentations were made by the representatives of the Manchester University (UK), Ottawa University (Canada), Georgia Institute of Technology (USA), OECD, UNIDO, the Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research, Malta Council for Science and Technology, the Russian Venture Company, Higher School of Economics as well as other organisations. The main discussion topics included: Foresight — policy issues and instruments; best national and international Foresight practices; applied Foresight; prospective innovation policy for the Russian Federation; STI policy instruments; new challenges for STI policy. |
|
|