The recent global crisis has “devalued” many pre-crisis forecasts and strategies, including those in Russia. This fostered the redesigning of science, technology and innovation (STI) policy frameworks to adjust the scope and priorities of STI funding and to elaborate a new set of long-term strategic planning documents, in particular, to revise the Russian Long-Term S&T Foresight. Since S&T and broader socio-economic processes are closely interrelated, the new macroeconomic forecasting is a key building block for updating Russian Long-Term S&T Foresight; it is carried out by the Center for Macroeconomic Analysis and Short-Term Forecasting (CMASF). The article presents interim results, namely, a set of possible scenarios of global development and their projections for Russia.

The scenarios at the global level are determined by the pace and nature of the economic recovery worldwide, as well as by the opportunities and consequences of technological breakthroughs in the energy sector, which is expected to have the largest impact on development of the world economy. The energy sector transformation is encouraged by new technological solutions, and these can translate into large-scale market transformation with huge economic effect. The content of scenarios at the national level depends on the adaptation of the economy to the changing context of the world markets. Adaptation, in turn, determines the patterns of managing resource rents and foreign investment, as well as positioning in growing markets.

The “inflation technological breakthrough” scenario presupposes the availability of abundant savings worldwide, whose targeted investment could result in the next technological breakthrough. It will help integrate Russia into global production chains. If the “boom” on financial markets does result in technological breakthrough, however, the world will be subjected to high inflation, and the high oil prices will spark the development of non-traditional hydrocarbon fuels (“energy inflation” scenario). There are two options for Russia in this case, each of which has its pros and cons. The first presumes recapitalizing traditional assets. The second relies on building competitive advantage through the development of public-private partnerships, attracting direct portfolio investment, updating scale production and reforming institutions.

Finally, if a recovery from the global crisis is protracted, the best “recipe” is “creative destruction” — eliminating the outdated and inefficient industries while creating opportunities for the development of more advantageous companies that will provide a qualitatively new basis for growth.

Innovation activities localized in municipalities are increasingly regarded as the key to fostering growth at the regional level. A deeper statistical analysis of its main actors enables identifying previously unobvious interrelations and better understanding capacities of a territory. However in most countries the analysis of the geographical distribution of R&D until today has been based, so far, on data broken down at regional level. Only a few countries implement breaking down the available regional data to a much more detailed municipality level. The paper reports some preliminary results of such comprehensive study recently undertaken in Italy. It provides a descriptive analysis on localization of knowledge activities (R&D, patents, publications), evaluates the relationship among the knowledge activities performed by the key actors — business, public sector, higher education and private non-profit organizations, attempts to identify the sectorial R&D specialization of the Italian Local Labour Systems (LLSs).

The analysis shows that knowledge activities are quite spread over the Italian territory but, at the same time, they are also heavily concentrated. Only about half of LLSs accommodate public or private R&D performers or authors of scientific publications. The presented data largely confirm the traditional dichotomy between Northern and Southern Italy: Northern regions host the highest rates of the national R&D expenditure and have almost a monopoly for patents. When considering only large urban areas, there are no major differences in the geographical distribution of research expenditure and output.

The main difference is about the “less knowledge active” LLSs: in Southern Italy, for instance, there is a significant gap of research activities between the urban areas and the territories less intensively urbanized and industrialised. On the other hand, in the Northern regions, even small LLSs have some evidence of R&D expenditure or patents. These differences are strictly connected with the structure of university network and productive activities: in particular, Veneto and Emilia Romagna have a more even diffusion of R&D activities — there are a large number of universities as well as a plenty of small or medium innovative firms in these regions. In their turn, Piedmont and Lombardy concentrate their knowledge potential around the large urban areas. Relating to the first two regions the existence of a Regional Innovation System could be assumed, while in Piedmont and Lombardy a Local Innovation System has emerged.

Based on the case of the University of Texas at Austin, the authors provide a model of knowledge-based regional development that enables leadership and international competitiveness. In the framework of this model, University of Texas is regarded as a core of a regional innovation system. In addition to the traditional objectives of performing research and education, universities are increasingly tasked with the third mission of transferring and commercializing university-based R&D to stimulate economic development. While responding to growing industry needs and efficiently interrelating with industries and governments, universities shape a unique entrepreneurial environment that foster development of the regional innovation ecosystem. The university has a direct impact on the regional innovation ecosystem development and is also impacted by feedback loops from the ecosystem. This enables reinforcement of the university’s potential.

The case of Austin shows that its successful transformation from a university town to a fast-growing, globally competitive hi-tech hotspot has occurred mainly owing to visionary influencers rather to institutional excellence in science, industry or governance. Their ability to make bolddecisions, connect and leverage otherwise unconnected and perhaps competingsectorsin the framework oflarge-scale projects, generatea creativeenvironment forproductive partnershipsand achievesynergyled to theinstitutional and organizationalchange.

With information and communication technologies becoming an essential part of human life, the very nature of relations between human and computers is changing. Technologies are aimed at augmenting certain human values, but they may contradict with other values thus having adverse implications for quality of life. Is it possible to preserve key values in the face of such transformations? The solution of this vital question largely depends on research and development in Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) — an interdisciplinary field that has gained rapid development in recent decades.

This topic is of great concern to Microsoft. The paper summarizes the results of longstanding research conducted by the company in the field. It provides a historical overview of developing HCI research, their state-of-art and future outlook; analyses major trends that radically transform relations between human and technology, related opportunities, risks and relevant issues for R&D. Then, it sets out recommendations on reforming the HCI sphere so that it could provide a relevant response to future challenges. First, it is suggested that the way that user-centered research and design is conducted be extended by including another stage of conceptual analysis that explicitly addresses ethical, social and political implications of unfolding trends. A second way forward is to strengthen focus on interdisciplinary facets of Human-Computer Interaction. This presumes elaboration of a lingua franca that enables analyzing emergent transformations, and exploring how to steer them in “human” directions. It is important to define a set of immutable values that are vital for supporting human identity. These values should retain a dominant position in the flux of continuing technology-driven transformations.

In many countries Centres of Excellence (CoEs) are regarded as efficient tools of STI policy and play a significant role in anti-crisis policy mixes. How can CoEs be managed, supported and evaluated? CoEs were the focus of discussions held at early April under the thematic section «Global Trends in Public R&D Investments – Designing, Establishing and Operating Centers of Excellence» which took place in the framework of the XIV HSE International Academic Conference on Economic and Social Development. Presentations were made by speakers from the OECD, University of Ottawa (Canada), KISTEP (Korea), DFG (Germany), Centre for Macroeconomic Analysis and Short-term Forecasting, HSE and other organizations. The participants discussed theoretical issues, country practices, and patterns of developing CoEs, and ways to adapt best international practice to the Russian context.

Development of the science sector was touched upon by the round table “Monitoring Economics of Science: Principal Results and Future Outlook” – another event held by the HSE ISSEK in the framework of the April Conference. ISSEK scholars presented outputs of the large-scale study aimed at establishing the system of collecting, processing and analyzing data that characterize economic trends in diverse sectors of R&D performance in Russia – government, business enterprise and higher education. Statistical research undertaken in the framework of this project was in many respects uniquenot only fordomestic but alsofor the world practice. The focus was on the resourcebase oforganizations engaged in R&D,the outputs of their STI activities, cooperation linkages, technology transfer processes, and the technological level of productionin enterprises. The project was also regarded as a base for testing the new tools for public statistics particularly related to measurement of unobservable R&D activities.   

Elena Abramova — Chief Executive, Center for Macroeconomic Analysis and Short-Term Forecasting. Address: Office 1308, 47, Nakhimovsky av., Moscow, Russia 117418.  E-mail: EAbramova@forecast.ru

Kamill Akhmetov — Technical Policies Specialist, Russia Technology Office, Microsoft Russia. Address: 17, bld. 1, Krylatskaya str., Moscow, Russian Federation 121614. E-mail: a-kaakh@microsoft.com

Alexander Apokin — Senior Expert, Center for Macroeconomic Analysis and Short-Term Forecasting. Address: Office 1308, 47, Nakhimovsky av., Moscow, Russia 117418. E-mail: AApokin@forecast.ru

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

John Butler — Director, IC² Institute, The University of Texas at Austin. Address: 2815 San Gabriel St., Austin, Texas, USA 78705. E-mail: john.butler@mccombs.utexas.edu

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

David Gibson — Senior Research Scientist and Associate Director, IC² Institute, The University of Texas at Austin. Address: 2815 San Gabriel St., Austin, Texas, USA 78705.  E-mail: davidg@ic2.utexas.edu

Kirill Mikhailenko — Senior Expert, Center for Macroeconomic Analysis and Short-Term Forecasting. Address: Office 1308, 47, Nakhimovsky av., Moscow, Russia 117418.   E-mail: KMikhailenko@forecast.ru

Lucio Morettini — Statistical consultant, Institute for the Study of Regionalism, Federalism and Self-Government - National Research Council (ISSiRFA-CNR). Address: Via dei Taurini, 19, 00185, Roma, Italy. E-mail: lucio.morettini@issirfa.cnr.it

Elena Penukhina — Expert, Center for Macroeconomic Analysis and Short-Term Forecasting. Address: Office 1308, 47, Nakhimovsky av., Moscow, Russia 117418.   E-mail: EPenukhina@forecast.ru

Giulio Perani — Head, Department for R&D and Innovation Statistics, National Institute of Statistics (Istat). Address: Via Tuscolana 1788, 00153, Roma, Italy. E-mail: perani@istat.it

Giorgio Sirilli — Discipline Leader, Institute for the Study of Regionalism, Federalism and Self-Government - National Research Council (ISSiRFA-CNR). Address: Via dei Taurini, 19, 00185, Roma, Italy.  E-mail: giorgio.sirilli@cnr.it