ISSN 1995-459X print E-ISSN 2312-9972 online ISSN 2500-2597 online English
Editor-in-chief Leonid Gokhberg
|
2012. vol. 6. No. 3
|
Strategies
|
6–15
|
Evgeniy Kutsenko — Senior Research Fellow, Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge, National Research University Higher School of Economics. E-mail: ekutsenko@hse.ru Address: National Research University Higher School of Economics, 20, Myasnitskaya str., Moscow, 101000. Debates on the viability—and the extent of public intervention—that are requisite in the formation and development of clusters are ongoing. It seems, on one hand, that there are few cases of systematic and successful cluster creation from the ground up. On another, clusters shaped without any contribution from government are difficult to find. In this sense, the empirical evidence will not readily provide an answer to the questions, how much intervention is needed and are the existing tools adequate for creating clusters. The author analyses two basic types of market failures related to shaping and development of clusters. These are a mismatch of territorial location of production forces to existing centrifugal and centripetal agglomeration effects (positive and negative external gains, as well as underproduction of a positive external gain that influences performance of local actors. The paper also concerns possible causes, where public cluster policy produces inefficiencies (government failures). That is, it analyses the most obvious risks for policy implementation. It is argued that an efficient policy should be aimed at dealing with market failures, while the procedures and implementing algorithms — at overcoming government failures. |
|
16–27
|
Vasily Abashkin — Senior Research Fellow, Centre for S&T, Innovation and Information Policy. E-mail: vabashkin@hse.ru
Arthur Boyarov — Senior Research Fellow, Division for Private-Public Partnerships in Innovation. E-mail: boyarov@hse.ru Evgeniy Kutsenko — Senior Research Fellow. E-mail: ekutsenko@hse.ru 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. An extensive development of industrial clusters in numerous regions worldwide is determined by wide opportunities for economic growth and a series of positive ripple effects. According to international practice, developing a cluster strategy is an important step towards building a full-fledged innovation policy toolkit; moreover it gives evidence of a well thought out long-term approach by government to overall development of territories and economic sectors. At present the Russian government has moved from conceptual frameworks to implementation of specific cluster initiatives. However using tools that have originated abroad in the Russian context requires a thorough analysis of intrinsic barriers reducing the efficiency of innovation development programmes. Direct borrowing of institutions and mechanisms from practices of leading countries rarely leads to desired outcomes. While using even advanced policy tools it is important to take into account specifics of the target environment, pay a special attention to details, not only to general frameworks and principles of incorporated institutes. The main aim of this paper is to find and rationalize key success factors for the emerging national system of supporting regional clusters. To that end it compares the best international practices and specifics of implementing cluster policy in Russia. |
Innovation and Economy
|
28–39
|
Gudrun Rumpf — Team Leader, Department for Infocom & Consulting Services, INTRASOFT International (Luxembourg) Address: 2b rue Nicolas Bov, L – 1253 Luxembourg Setting priorities for supporting prospective technologies and activities is a key issue for science, technology and innovation (STI) policy. The general principles of priority-setting practices vary significantly across countries in terms of process and outcome due to different national cultures, historical prerequisites and rigidities of institutional settings. Often there is a perceived gap between stated policy goals and actual implementation of policy measures. A gap is typical for many developing countries, including Ukraine, in particular,. Ukraine has an established system of laws for STI as well as a solid methodological base for priority setting. Policy aims, however, are not supported by relevant implementation mechanisms, including programmes and framework conditions as well as monitoring and evaluation procedures. The paper analyses evidences from several leading European countries and provides recommendations on how to achieve higher performance of priority setting and thus overall innovation policy. The author concludes that relying on a too narrow definition of thematic priorities may lead to dead-ends. In contrast too broadly ranging priorities do not direct the innovation policy sufficiently. An optimal balance could be achieved if only the government concentrates more on setting general goals and targets as well as ensures necessary framework conditions and infrastructure for innovation, allowing the bottom-up market forces to select thematic priorities. Besides the setting of priorities and their implementation should be delegated to committed organizations and agencies that possess all the relevant resources and competences. This ensures both vertical and horizontal policy co-ordination as well as wider stakeholder involvement into the preparation and implementation of a national innovation strategy. |
Science
|
40–49
|
Johann Jacob — Evaluation Project Manager. E-mail: johann.jacob@enap.ca Moktar Lamari — Director. E-mail: moktar.lamari@enap.ca Centre d’expertise et de recherche en évaluation de programmes (CREXE), École nationale d’administration publique, Université du Québec, Canada Address: 555, boulevard Charest Est, Québec (Québec) G1K 9E5 Universities play an increasingly significant role in producing new knowledge. The relationship between research inputs (grants, infrastructure spending, training of researchers) and research outputs (number of publications, citation, impact) emerges, therefore, as a strategic issue for public decision-making on funding in support of innovation and the development of competencies. Despite the abundance of empirical works on the question of researcher productivity, there is a paucity of studies dealing with this issue in the context of higher eductaion. This paper seeks to identify the factors that explain research productivity in higher education, using as a case study, the universities in Quebec-Canada. The main hypothesis is that productivity in scientific research is significantly influenced by the volume and origin of the funding sources mobilized to support scientific research performance. We analyzed data on 194 researchers for the period of 2001–2008. Individual publications in referred journals (number of publications, fractioned publications, citations, impacts) were used as indicators for research productivity. Factor analysis and linear regression served as tools for evaluation. Our findings imply that the volume of funding is not as influential as supposed. We revealed that age and language (Francophone versus Anglophone) of university instruction, and, in addition, the origin of funding do affect researcher productivity. Generally speaking, young researchers, as well as those affiliated with Anglophone or/and large universities tend to produce more publications. The gender of researcher does not seem to significantly influence the productivity variables. The results of our analysis should motivate program evaluators who assess the benefits of public funding andintervention to support academic research. It is essential thatevaluators do not only see these benefits in terms of number of publications produced, but also through the prism of publication quality (citations and outcomes generated) as well as individual and organizational attributes. In this way, those designing interventions to support research will benefit from the fully-fledged information necessary to improve program effectiveness. |
|
51–61
|
Mikhail Gershman — Senior Research Fellow. E-mail: mgershman@hse.ru
Tatiana Kuznetsova — Director, Centre for S&T, Innovation and Information Policy, and Deputy Head, Laboratory for Economics of Innovation. Е-mail: tkuznetzova@hse.ru
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 Practice shows the crucial role of international S&T co-operation using small innovative enterprises, which are flexible in adjusting to the needs of producers and users of new knowledge and technologies as well as to volatile market conditions. In Russia, the performance of small innovative enterprises in this regard is less visible than it is abroad. There are little reliable data on their activities, which require sourcing by special surveys. The paper provides the results of surveying Russian small enterprises involved into S&T co-operation with German firms and organizations. The main aim is to reveal incentives and barriers for international S&T co-operation as well as evaluate the efficiency of public support for such co-operation. |
Master Class
|
62–74
|
Ekaterina Makarova — Research Intern, Research Laboratory for Science and Technology Studies. E-mail: kmakarova@hse.ru
Anna Sokolova — Senior Research Fellow, Research Laboratory for Science and Technology Studies. Е-mail: avsokolova@hse.ru
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 As the impact of strategic decision-making at the corporate, sectoral and national levels increase, there are growing demands for high quality and solid Foresight outputs. In this regard, a timely detection and elimination of problems in Foresight projects is of great importance. A thorough evaluation of criteria and methods used in Foresight analysis would permit the improved effectiveness of Foresight activities. The results could be set against the aims to decide on the feasibility of projects and identify ways to improve them. Despite great interest in Foresight evaluation demonstrated by stakeholders at various levels, the general principles for conducting it have not yet been formulated, which hinders its development and the diffusion of successful expertise. The purpose of this paper is to identify the basic elements-criteria and methods—used in evaluating national Foresight. It presents the most interesting results for specific tasks, the themes examined, the methods and the findings, in general. In addition, the study allowed some inference about theory and practice of project management. The study reveals that a key motivation for evaluation of Foresight projects is to provide feedback to national Foresight organizations and identify areas for further development. Evaluation is used to guide Foresight (in varying degrees) and provide lessons learned for future projects (for example, simplifying implementation, involving business and social organizations, recognizing the need for better compliance with the methodology and objectives of the study participants). The paper serves to develop a general methodology for assessing national Foresight programmes. A further agenda is to develop a comprehensive analysis of Foresight, ensure comparability of results of Foresight evaluation initiatives in different countries, promote standardization of evaluation procedures. |
Events
|
76–81
|
The workshop «Linkages between Actors in the Innovation System» (June 13-15), organized by the HSE ISSEK Laboratory for Economics of Innovation, assessed the weight of various components of the innovation system on its overall dynamics. The event was attended by leading international researchers from the UK, Norway and Sweden, HSE representatives and other specialists. The agenda of discussions included: entrepreneurship as a driver of new industries as exemplified by service design; science, technology and innovation in Russia; knowledge-intensive business services and technology transfer as incentives for innovation in enterprises; innovation skills and behavioral patterns of key actors of the innovation system and people; technology audit; green-growth strategies for the oil-gas sector; and the design of innovation policy in a «systems of innovation» perspective. |
|
|
Vasily Abashkin— Senior Research Fellow, Centre for S&T, Innovation and Information Policy, 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. E-mail: vabashkin@hse.ru Arthur Boyarov — Senior Research Fellow, Division for Private-Public Partnerships in Innovation, 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. E-mail: boyarov@hse.ru Mikhail Gershman— Senior Research Fellow, 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. E-mail: mgershman@hse.ru
Tatiana Kuznetsova — Director, Centre for S&T, Innovation and Information Policy, and Deputy Head, Laboratory for Economics of Innovation, 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. Е-mail: tkuznetzova@hse.ru Johann Jacob — Evaluation Project Manager, Centre d’expertise et de recherche en évaluation de programmes (CREXE), École nationale d’administration publique, Université du Québec, Canada. Address: 555, boulevard Charest Est, Québec (Québec) G1K 9E5. E-mail: johann.jacob@enap.ca Evgeniy Kutsenko— Senior Research Fellow, 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. E-mail: ekutsenko@hse.ru Moktar Lamari— Director, Centre d’expertise et de recherche en évaluation de programmes (CREXE), École nationale d’administration publique, Université du Québec, Canada. Address: 555, boulevard Charest Est, Québec (Québec) G1K 9E5. E-mail: moktar.lamari@enap.ca Ekaterina Makarova —Research Intern, 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. E-mail: kmakarova@hse.ru
Anna Sokolova — Senior 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. Е-mail: avsokolova@hse.ru Gudrun Rumpf— Team Leader, Department for Infocom & Consulting Services, INTRASOFT International (Luxembourg). Address: 2b rue Nicolas Bov, L – 1253 Luxembourg. E-mail: Rumpf.Gudrun@gmail.com |
|
|