ISSN 1995-459X print E-ISSN 2312-9972 online ISSN 2500-2597 online English
Editor-in-chief Leonid Gokhberg
|
2014. vol. 8. No. 3
|
Strategies
|
6–17
|
This paper discusses the participation of the EU13 countries in European research, mainly in the European Framework Programmes for RTD. It briefly reflects on the structural challenges of the then Central European candidate countries during the transformation period in the 1990s to recall their starting-point at the time when they first became associated to the European Framework Programme for RTD. Almost 15 years after the first full association to the European Framework Programme for RTD, the actual participation situation of the ‘new’ EU member states is analysed. Next, the European Union’s measures to enhance widening participation of organizations in the ongoing European Framework Programme for RTD with the name ‘HORIZON 2020’ are concisely described. Finally, conclusions are drawn as to why – despite several efforts – participation of the EU13 is still low. It is argued that structural deficiencies of national innovation and research systems have to be further eliminated, that smaller corrective measures like upgraded NCP systems may be necessary but not sufficient and that a sustainable enhancement of participation has to be based on increasing excellence adopted to the national and local context. The paper introduces a set of adoption actions such as awareness-raising, information and advice to access HORIZON 2020, advice and quick checks of project ideas, support for international partner search, creation of sectorial or cross-sectorial interest groups, promotion of local academia-industry cooperation and their cross-border networking, provision of training to potential EU project managers etc. Such activities are often performed by NCP systems. They can help to mobilise ‘dormant’ research communities, and perhaps upgrade a proposal from one level to the next. Nonetheless, they can neither generate excellent ideas nor write outstanding research proposals which are needed to compete successfully in HORIZON 2020. NCP systems can neither balance structural deficiencies of national innovation and research systems, nor replace forward-looking STI policy-making which requires special efforts to implement. |
Innovation and Economy
|
18–41
|
Tax incentives have proven to be an efficient tool of state support for science, technology and innovation, and are used by many countries on their way towards sustainable development and enhancing global competitiveness. Fiscal stimuli are increasingly combined in a more flexible manner, thus contributing to attaining wider spectrum of objectives; means of international comparison and evaluating impact of these tools are actively evolving. However, despite the fact that for many countries the tax incentives are demandable and work effectively, Russia's situation is different. Based on the results of a specialized survey, the paper estimates the demand for R&D tax breaks from Russian manufacturing enterprises, research organizations and universities performing R&D. The study demonstrated that such a demand is generally low for all types of surveyed organizations, probably due to both the imperfection of the Russian tax legislation, which makes the considered tool inefficient, and low share of the organizations engaged in R&D and innovation. Among the most frequently noted demotivating factors were mismatch of organization’s activity to the terms of using a specific tax break, as well as unwarranted costs associated with the need to prove the right to use these breaks. When using a specific tax incentive, the research institutions typically seek exemption from VAT for R&D activities and patent licensing operations, as well as benefit to mainstream targeted grants. Universities engaged in R&D are more likely to turn to the benefits for grants and accelerated depreciation of fixed assets used for scientific and technological activities. The analysis showed that in Russia the public sector dominates among all categories of recipients of tax incentives for research and innovation. This situation is contrary to best practices and global trends in supporting research activities, which involve betting on strong national players (including startups and SMEs). It hardly allows STI tax incentives to be an efficient mean and provides a basis for the revision and optimization of these tools. This paper indicates possible further directions in the studying tax incentives, their classification, performance assessment and optimization to meet best practices, global trends, and the forefront of research in this area. |
|
42–57
|
Contrary to more advanced countries, Russia’s district heating hardly embraces radical innovations. Moving forward with breakthrough solutions, even if they have proven their effectiveness at leading European companies and are supported by federal and regional authorities, encounters significant obstacles. These obstacles include inflexible corporate management, including when interacting with customers, and inexperience in creating internal corporate startups and managing risks in the early stages of R&D. The authors review the innovation activity of heating companies, analyze the difficulties in adopting innovations, and compare the strategies and performance indicators of Russian and Finnish energy companies. Special emphasis is given to the Moscow district heating system. Analysis shows that its’ strategic development in the past decade has focused primarily on reframing the organizational set-up, not innovation. As a result, business processes and cash flows were largely streamlined but European level of productivity was not achieved. The creation of a single vertically integrated entity in Moscow’s energy industry has limited the ability to develop alternative district heating and cooling systems. Energy infrastructure innovation centres are sparse and feature limited specialization and competition. Large companies tend to follow the ‘closed innovation’ model where R&D activities are concentrated within an organization, and focus on incremental innovations while lagging in radical innovations in cogeneration and trigeneration. Under these conditions, short-term planning dominates, while mid- and long-term planning are virtually non-existent. The paper concludes with recommended measures to support the innovative development of Russian heating companies that can be split into institutional and corporate recommendations. The first group concerns stimulating competition in the heat supply market and creating a stable legal and investment environment. The second group calls for technological modernization, development of long-term corporate strategies that include investment programmes, systematic analysis of the best international practices for innovative development, and the formation of partner networks involving foreign innovative, consulting, and research centres. |
Science
|
58–69
|
Strengthening the motivation, quality and efficiency of researchers’ work is a pressing issue in all countries active in science, technology and innovation policy. One way to address this challenge is by introducing flexible remuneration mechanisms which are country-specific yet still share certain basic principles such as the relationship between compensation and research productivity. Improving researchers’ remuneration is particularly urgent issue now in Russia and it is addressed by recent policy measures adopted since 2012. This paper contributes new evidence from Russian researchers, R&D managers, and government representatives collected via a survey and focus group discussions on the desirability and efficiency of the current remuneration policy. Although most members of Russia’s scientific community do not question the necessity and relevance of the government’s ‘efficient contract’ initiative in the R&D sector, the implementation of this policy has had a more mixed response. Scientists’ generally low enthusiasm towards the planned reforms may be explained by a general low level of trust in executive authorities by all layers of Russian society (especially by intellectuals), a conservative inertia of the scientific community, and by the de facto failure of previous attempts at reform. Overall, Russian scientists see introducing efficient remuneration mechanisms and increasing research productivity as key challenges. The experts pointed out that research productivity should be interpreted more widely, to include researchers’ educational, administrative and other responsibilities. The package of indicators used to evaluate R&D productivity should take into account the particular features of different scientific disciplines and areas of work. Performance-related pay (PRP) mechanisms can only be efficient if a decent basic salary is provided. Negotiating such imbalances could make the R&D sphere attractive again to talented young people as well as to experienced professionals. Our analysis leads us to conclude that a rapid transition to a PRP system without simultaneously undertaking much-needed institutional reforms would be inadvisable. It is first necessary to address the systemic problems. Regular business processes should be restructured so that researchers do not have to carry out irrelevant responsibilities. It is certainly necessary to continue increasing R&D expenditures, including raising researchers’ salaries. However, that will have little effect if researchers do not see professional and personal opportunities for themselves in the future and if their profession’s prestige remains low. An incomplete list of due S&T policy reforms includes: restructuring the public R&D sector and identifying the best performing PROs; improving funding mechanisms; attracting non-budgetary funds; improving the work of public science foundations; upgrading facilities and equipment; implementing targeted measures to preserve disciplinary schools in science; and attracting young people into science. |
|
70–81
|
Public research plays an extremely important role in social and economic development, and has implications for industry, services, education, training, the creation and diffusion of knowledge, management etc. In turn, R&D and innovation activities in the business sector are becoming increasingly open. Being influenced by increasingly tightened global competition, companies are entering into partnerships with other companies, universities or public research institutions (PRIs) to leverage competences from different places and organizations to foster innovation. The search for partners and the management of many co-operations itself are new challenges especially in terms of administering intellectual property rights. Universities and PRIs must respond to the changing requirements imposed by companies while maintaining their unique positions as research and science related institutions. The overall framework conditions for these actors are changing, which in turn requires new government policies especially given the slowdown in key performance indicators of the commercialization activities of PRIs. The paper highlights recent trends and approaches related to knowledge and technology transfer from public research and education to industry. It considers legislative initiatives to target industry engagement and research personnel, new technology transfer office models, collaborative intellectual property (IP) tools, and initiatives to facilitate access to public research results. The authors stress that the quality of research has a strong influence on knowledge and technology transfer. In turn, contrary to the widespread belief that knowledge and technology transfer activities might negatively impact scientists’ academic work several studies found evidence that the engagement of scientists in technology transfer and commercialization activities does not have negative impacts on the quality and quantity of academic research. In fact, scientists who are actively engaged in technology and knowledge transfer, i.e. through patenting, also enjoy a high scientific reputation and in most cases do excellent scientific work. |
|
|