ISSN 1995-459X print E-ISSN 2312-9972 online ISSN 2500-2597 online English
Editor-in-chief Leonid Gokhberg
|
2012. vol. 6. No. 2
|
Strategies
|
6–16
|
Dmitry Belousov — Discipline Leader, Center for Macroeconomic Analysis and Short-Term Foreccasting. E-mail: DBelousov@forecast.ru Alexander Frolov — Expert, Center for Macroeconomic Analysis and Short-Term Foreccasting. E-mail: AFrolov@forecast.ru Irina Sukhareva — Expert, Center for Macroeconomic Analysis and Short-Term Foreccasting. E-mail: I.Sukhareva@forecast.ru Address: Office 1308, 47, Nakhimovsky av., Moscow, Russia 117418. Technology roadmaps are typically used in terms of normative approach to long-term S&T forecasting thus serving as a visual tool to identify optimal ways to reach defined future goals. Nonetheless roadmaps can be applied to exploratory studies as well. The latter are aimed at identifying key potentially transformative events, whose dynamics could be influenced by a wide range of externalities. Trends in some fields appear to dominate and shape movement in other areas. Roadmapping allows visualizing and assessing probabilities of cross-impact between various areas of forecasting thus identifying possible scenario bifurcations as well as new risks and opportunities. This paper describes the exploratory roadmap being developed for the Russian Long-Term S&T Foresight 2030. According to that roadmap, evolution to 2020 closely follows macroeconomic trends. However, in regard to technological development, either the «rapid inflation» scenario or the «gradual way out of the crisis» one, the rate is the same, in our view. After 2020, the dominating role in evolution is expected to shift to «global technologies». These technologies are grouped into six thematic areas according to countries’ S&T priorities, i.e. energy, transport, information and communications technologies (ICTs), medicine, nanotechnologies, and production systems. The most influential scenario bifurcation in the roadmap emerges from the field of energy. Depending on the actual scenario — «the expansion of alternative energy sources» or «the widespread use of non-conventional hydrocarbon fuels» — the global economy will experience rapid growth or slow stagnation respectively. |
Innovation and Economy
|
18–41
|
Denis Ivanov — Researcher, Interdepartmental Analytical Centre. E-mail: ivanov@iacenter.ru Mikhail Kuzyk — Discipline Leader, Interdepartmental Analytical Centre. E-mail: kuzyk@iacenter.ru Yury Simachev — Deputy Managing Director, Interdepartmental Analytical Centre. E-mail: simachev@iacenter.ru Address: 31/29, bld.2, Povarskaya str., Moscow, Russia 121069, p.o. box 35. Russian innovation policy has fostered considerable discussion: how to encourage innovation, what methods work best, and what institutional and resource bases are required, including a broad perception among decision-makers of the range of instruments commonly used. However, at the public level, by contrast with some local innovative projects, policy has not yet succeeded in finding an efficient way to leverage business innovation performance. This paper is based on an autumn 2011 survey of top managers of more than 600 Russian industrial enterprises. The authors analyze the success of current instruments for fostering business innovation and identify business demand for public policies. It focuses on factors hindering Russian firms’ innovation, including the instable business climate and internal bureaucratization of business processes, which limit openness to innovation, and factors promoting it, strengthening competitiveness, improving public procurement, and reinforcing industrial standards. More than half of the managers of innovative companies observed effects of policies promoting innovation, although this observation was mainly by champions rather than outsiders. According to the respondents the maximum policy outreach is attributable in the survey to tax incentives. In this sense, policy tools that were appreciated were those contributing to the expansion of innovation activity than to its start. The productivity of innovation naturally depends on management quality. The argument here is that policies that foster a stable regulatory environment attract innovation and investment, which helps augment the population of innovative firms. Such measures boost others more directly fostering innovation, especially new firms that need help in distributing risk. The tendency of respondents to appreciate importsubstitution policy is associated here with their lack of export orientation for the hi-tech products they produce. Policies restraining foreign trade, however, should be avoided as providing an adverse incentive to innovate as well as worsening conditions for technology adoption and adjustment. |
|
44–55
|
Anna Zaytseva — Junior Research Fellow, Research Laboratory for Science and Technology Studies, Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge, National Research University Higher School of Economics. E-mail: azaytseva@hse.ru Address: National Research University Higher School of Economics, 20 Myasnitskaya str., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation. Since the beginning of 1990s the Vietnamese economy has been undergone structural changes that until recently have resulted in fast modernization and GDP growth. Recognizing the need to point economic development towards innovation, the government has undertaken institutional reform. This paper assesses the evolution of science, technology and innovation policy for the last decade in Vietnam, with emphasis on the coherence and efficiency of policy instruments. The study shows that despite major steps forward in the formation of a legislative and institutional framework for the national innovation system, there are factors working against it. The mixed character of the Vietnamese economy (combining market institutions with tight public regulation and a significant share of public property) fostered by inconsistent and ineffective policies, discourages the innovation environment and synergy of reforms. There is also a huge gap between policy and implementation. Another factor is difficulties with setting strategic goals and defining policy priorities: policy tasks are overwhelming in number, but also there is overlap. There is no interdepartmental agency able to provide horizontal and vertical co-ordination of governmental initiatives. The bias towards fostering «technology push» as well as preserving dominance of state actors in science and industry is the most important inconsistency; «market pull» based tools remain underdeveloped. A new set of measures envisaged by the Strategy of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Development for 2011-2020 provides some opportunity for new policies. The government will need to revise the framework conditions restricting the development of competition, introduce demand-driven and inclusive development oriented tools as well as develop targeted and complementary regulation. Qualitative improvement of institutions requires introducin competitiveness where now economic elites dominate, and this, again, forces into the open the tension between economic pluralism and political monopoly. |
Master Class
|
56–74
|
Rafael Popper — Research Fellow, Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, University of Manchester, UK. E-mail: rafael.popper@manchester.ac.uk Address: Booth Street West, Manchester, M15 6PB, UK. In recent decades Foresight and other forward-looking activities (FLA) gained ground as a tool of science, technology and innovation (STI) policy. The number of FLA studies is globally rising. To some extent, foresight is governed by context-depended issues; however there are also common features in the objectives, methodology, and recommendations made. Mapping allows codifying and analyzing a bulk of FLA experiences gained worldwide. This in turn will contribute to enhancing performance of such activities and therefore of STI policy as a whole. The paper provides rationales for Futures Studies mapping, considers related opportunities and challenges, reviews lessons learned from early mapping efforts. It focuses on the large-scale EU-funded mapping project “European Foresight Platform” (EFP). Using this project as illustration, the paper describes mapping routines, the selected indicators of mapped Foresight initiatives, including their objectives, participants, target groups, methodologies, outcomes and recommendations. It discusses the potential and the limitations of particular mapping tools as well as possible applications of gained knowledge. Basing on mapping results, policy-makers, for example, are able to identify gaps to be addressed with relevant policy tools, Mapping also allows Foresight practitioners to develop strategies for further research and shape expert networks for their implementation. |
Events
|
76–80
|
This article provides an overview of discussions held at the Section «Science and Innovation» (April 4, 2012) organized by the Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge (Higher School of Economics, HSE) in the framework of the XIII HSE International Academic Conference on Economic and Social Development. Presentations were made by experts from the Manchester Institute of Innovation Research (University of Manchester, UK), the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, the Siberian State Medical University, and the HSE. The following issues were discussed: S&T Foresight in Russia; tools, organization and place in Russian S&T Policy; grand challenges and S&T Foresight; evaluation of the prospects of mature and emerging technologies; priority setting for public-private partnership based on Foresight; evaluation of S&T Foresight studies. |
|
|
Dmitry Belousov — Discipline Leader, Center for Macroeconomic Analysis and Short-Term Forecasting. Address: Office 1308, 47, Nakhimovsky av., Moscow, Russia 117418. E-mail: DBelousov@forecast.ru Denis Ivanov — Researcher, Interdepartmental Analytical Centre. Address: 31/29, bld.2, Povarskaya str., Moscow, Russia 121069, p.o. box 35. E-mail: ivanov@iacenter.ru Alexander Frolov — Expert, Center for Macroeconomic Analysis and Short-Term Forecasting. Address: Office 1308, 47, Nakhimovsky av., Moscow, Russia 117418. E-mail: AFrolov@forecast.ru Mikhail Kuzyk — Discipline Leader, Interdepartmental Analytical Centre. Address: 31/29, bld.2, Povarskaya str., Moscow, Russia 121069, p.o. box 35. E-mail: kuzyk@iacenter.ru Rafael Popper — Research Fellow, Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, University of Manchester, UK. Address: Booth Street West, Manchester, M15 6PB, UK. E-mail: rafael.popper@manchester.ac.uk Yury Simachev — Deputy Managing Director, Interdepartmental Analytical Centre. Address: 31/29, bld.2, Povarskaya str., Moscow, Russia 121069, p.o. box 35. E-mail: simachev@iacenter.ru Irina Sukhareva — Expert, Center for Macroeconomic Analysis and Short-Term Foreccasting. Address: Office 1308, 47, Nakhimovsky av., Moscow, Russia 117418. E-mail: I.Sukhareva@forecast.ru Anna Zaytseva — Junior Research Fellow, Research Laboratory for Science and Technology Studies, Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge, National Research University Higher School of Economics. Address: National Research University Higher School of Economics, 20 Myasnitskaya str., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation. E-mail: azaytseva@hse.ru |
|
|