ISSN 1995-459X print E-ISSN 2312-9972 online ISSN 2500-2597 online English
Editor-in-chief Leonid Gokhberg
|
2013. vol. 7. No. 4
|
Innovation and Economy
|
6–15
|
For the majority of countries modernization of any kind is an important part of the political agenda. Policy-makers and experts are challenged to elucidate its distinct paths in different economies, to show why some countries succeed and others fail on their way towards modernization, and to identify the factors that make success stories. In this case, close attention is paid to the linkages between modernization and value systems, in particular, to tolerance. The aim of this paper is to test empirically the assumption that tolerance exerts a significant positive influence on modernization (which is understood in its ‘narrow’ sense as economic and technological development) as well as the contribution of an enabling mechanism — political institutions. The theoretical frameworks of our study are the cultural modernization approach by Ronald Inglehart and the concept of the «creative class» by Richard Florida. We used data from 58 countries over 1996-2008, retrieved from the World Values Survey, as well as from the World Bank databases «World Development Indicators» and «Worldwide Governance Indicators». The analysis confirmed that tolerance does have a significant impact on modernization in terms of transition towards a post-industrial (innovation) economy. This process is associated with the emergence of a specific social class — a creative class. Tolerance, expressed as a tolerant attitude towards homosexuality, gender equality, and a decrease in xenophobia, is a crucial prerequisite in establishing and maintaining favorable conditions for attracting creative people. Two distinct patterns of modernization are revealed, depending on the level of social tolerance: a tolerant model and a catch-up model. The post-industrial economy requires the formation of a relevant society based on the values of self-expression. However, some countries try to build a post-industrial economy without building a post-industrial society, although the probability of success in this case is rather low. This catch-up model focuses on investment, a lower-level of tolerance, and weak political institutions. The latter matter especially, and they seem to be the causal mechanism to ensure the linkages between tolerance and successful modernization. First of all, the linkage emerges from the rule of law and control of corruption. Institutions are regarded as a key element in the tolerant model of modernization, ensuring creative people to maintain openness, diversity, and protection of their interests, including the right to identity. Catch-up strategy, in contrast, puts the main emphasis not on values and strengthening institutions, but on higher investment rates. |
Science
|
16–42
|
Having benefitted from highly specialised research training, doctoral holders stand in a position to drive forward advances in science, technology and knowledge about society. Unfortunately, evidence on their careers is limited and sparse, owing, for example, to the fact that standard statistical sources are typically far too small to produce statistically robust results for this population. With a view to better understanding the labour market, career path and mobility of doctorate holders, the OECD, in coordination with the UNESCO Institute for Statistics and Eurostat, launched in 2004 a specific project on the Careers of Doctorate Holders (CDH). This paper provides an overview of the key statistical and analytical findings that draw on data from the second international CDH data collection conducted in 2010. It analyses the labour market and employment patterns of doctorate holders. Then, it looks at some important specificities of the doctoral job market, such as employment in research and patterns of job-to-job and international mobility. The study reveals a sustained labour market premium of doctorate holders relative to other highly qualified individuals. Women and younger doctoral graduates, however, fare relatively worse in terms of employment rates. While temporary positions are increasingly common in academics, they are less so in business. Natural scientists and engineers are more likely to be engaged in research, while social scientists find more opportunities in non-research occupations. Earnings are typically higher in the business sector than in other sectors, but there are exceptions. Job mobility patterns differ markedly across countries, with mobility being more frequent among doctorates not working in research. Oftentimes mobility from the business sector to the higher education sector is higher than the other way around. International mobility has kept increasing over the decade, although less common than it might be assumed for researchers. A wide range of monetary and non-pecuniary factors contribute to explaining the reported attractiveness of research careers. Satisfaction levels on aspects other than pay are particularly high for individuals working in research. Additional micro data work provide a clearer understanding on the career advancement of doctoral graduates in research and further information on job-to-job and international mobility patterns according to age, sex, sector of employment, field of science, type of contract as well as involvement in collaboration and networking activities. |
Master Class
|
44–59
|
International research laboratories represent a relatively new form for Russia of organizing the scientific community. They aim to attract leading international scientists as well as young scholars and thus to help increase national research capabilities. This paper analyses the efficiency of international labs in achieving these goals in terms of criteria that are intrinsic (number of publications, patents etc.) and perceived (job satisfaction). Motivation and involvement of employees as well as availability of resources are regarded as the main determinants of efficiency. Based on previous international and domestic studies in the field we build a conceptual model to estimate causal relations and correlations between these five variables. Our data source was the online survey of international scientific laboratories staff, which was conducted in April-June, 2012. The paper first describes the sample characteristics, then carries out factor analysis of motivation resulting in a typology, and, finally, presents a structural equation modeling to test the conceptual framework of analysis. Factor analysis reveals that four important groups of employee motives exist. Laboratory staff may be motivated (or unmotivated) by achievement in science, focus on careers abroad, practical-oriented material values and satisfaction with working conditions. Using structural equation modeling authors provide empirical evidence for the hypothesis about relations between employee engagement and job satisfaction. The more employees are engaged in lab activities, the higher are job satisfaction and productivity level. However, the strength of these effects is relatively small. The assumption of a positive relationship between job satisfaction and available resources was also confirmed. Additionally, analysis showed that employee engagement has a positive effect on the achievement of both objective and subjective results. |
|
60–69
|
This paper is based on discussions in the framework of the World Future Studies Federation Conference held in Bucharest, Romania in June 2013. It suggests some reasons that decisions are often made with good backsight and less foresight. We consider the frameworks for organisational strategy adopted by many organisations, the roles of professionals in organisations. There are two distinct archetypes of people in terms of management style and approach to the professional duties — «foxes» and «hedgehogs». The «hedgehogs» make up the majority of employees. They prefer to follow the «proven» patterns enabling the operational activities of the organisation, but are weedy in adopting the changes. The «foxes» in their turn have a flexible mindset, they are suspicious of commitment to any single way of seeing an issue, and are relatively ready to recalibrate their view when unexpected events cast doubt on what they had previously believed to be true. Many futurists display «fox» -like characteristics. We describe the characteristics of an organisation able effectively to harness the potential of both archetypes and take foresight into its strategy. The paper thus puts forward a framework for connecting foresight to strategic decisions in organisations, using the example of the work being done with the European Commission’s EFFLA (European Forum on Forward Looking Activities). We propose a four-stage strategy cycle process for aligning to the EC’s research and innovation policy cycle. The first two stages, strategic intelligence (horizon scanning) and sense-making, require individual expert contributions and are in focus by EFFLA. In turn, selecting priorities and implementation are up to the policy- and decision-makers. We consider the suggested steps at each stage and the linkages between them. In particular this scheme should allow the EC flexibly to adjust the milestones of the Horizon 2020 framework programme and to outline its successor, Horizon II. |
Events
|
70–78
|
Foresight approaches have been widely used in addressing many problems in S&T and innovation policy, and the methods employed continue to be developed. Foresight practitioners agree that there is still considerable scope for innovation and improvement in the field, however. How can conceptual frameworks and tools of Foresight be advanced so to better contribute to policymakers' search for Great Responses to the many Grand Challenges that confront contemporary societies? These fundamental questions were in focus in discussions at the Annual Conference on Foresight and S&T and Innovation Policy held on late October 2013 at the National Research University — Higher School of Economics (HSE) by the HSE Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge. The following topics were addressed in the agenda: - The role of Foresight in S&T and innovation policy;
- Networking and the use of Foresight results;
- Foresight for companies, sectors and technologies;
- Evolution of S&T Foresight.
Presentations were made by renowned experts from international organizations (OECD, UNESCO, UNIDO), worldwide leading Foresight think tanks — Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, University of Manchester, UK; Korea Institute of S&T Evaluation and Planning (KISTEP); National Institute of Science and Technology Policy (NISTEP), Japan; University of Ottawa (Canada); Research Center for Futures Studies, University of Hawaii at Manoa, US; Institute for Technological Innovation, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Singularity University, US; Centre for Social Innovation, Austria, as well as from Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, HSE and a range of other organizations. |
|
|
Laudeline Auriol — Analyst, Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Address: OECD, 2 rue Andre Pascal 75775 Paris Cedex 16 France. E-mail: laudeline.auriol@oecd.org Rebecca Freeman — Masters Сandidate, Johns Hopkins University, USA. E-mail: rebecca.a.freeman@gmail.com. Address: 3400 North Charles Street, Baltimore, Maryland USA 21218 Ronald Inglehart — Scientific Adviser, Laboratory for Comparative Social Research (LCSR) at the National Research University — Higher School of Economics (HSE), and Professor, University of Michigan (US). Address: National Research University — Higher School of Economics, 20, Myasnitskaya str., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation. E-mail: rfi@umich.edu Tatiana Karabchuk — Deputy Head, HSE LCSR. Address: National Research University — Higher School of Economics, 20, Myasnitskaya str., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation. E-mail: tkarabchuk@hse.ru Max Misu — Senior Researcher, National Institute of Science and Technology Policy (NISTEP), Japan. E-mail: maxmisu@nistep.go.jp. Address: 16th Floor, Central Government Building No 7 East Wing 3-2-2, Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0013, Japan Stanislav Moiseev — Intern Researcher, HSE LCSR. Address: National Research University — Higher School of Economics, 20, Myasnitskaya str., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation. E-mail: spmoiseev@gmail.com Marina Nikitina — Intern Researcher, HSE LCSR. Address: National Research University — Higher School of Economics, 20, Myasnitskaya str., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation. E-mail: m.marinanikitina@gmail.com) Gill Ringland — CEO and Fellow, SAMI Consulting, and Member, European Forum on Forward Looking Activities (EFFLA). Address: The Rectory, 1 Toomers Wharf, Canal Walk, Newbury RG14 1DY. E-mail: gill.ringland@samiconsulting.co.uk Andrey Shcherbak —Senior Research Fellow, Laboratory for Comparative Social Research, and Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, National Research University — Higher School of Economics (St.-Petersburg). Address: 47a, Rimskogo-Korsakova pr., 190068 St. Petersburg, Russian Federation. E-mail: ascherbak@hse.ru |
|
|